PDA

View Full Version : "The final battle in the civil war of values."


the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 09:42 PM
Straight from the mouth of James Dobson on t.v..

Refering to the constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage. He then likened it to D-Day and Stalingrad.


I find it troubling to see the language of war transplanted to civil issues during a time of real war and real death. The idea that the most pressing issue facing this country (or even one of the top 100 issues) is the question of gay marriage is bizarre and out of all proportion, imho.

We had similiar rhetoric from the minister in Sweden who claimed homosexuals were a "cancer" that would "obliterate" Sweden.

Following this rhetoric, and assuming they mean what they say, does that makes their parishoners (sp?) "soldiers"?

And do those who don't fear/hate/feel threatened by homosexuals have to "take up arms" against them since they are "waging a war"?

Does anyone else find this militant language coming from fundamentalist Christians just a bit nerve wracking given that we're fighting militant fundamentalists abroad?

I'm NOT saying that they're the same, but people have to be held accountable for the language they use and this language is unmistakeable.

Are these Christians at war with their country? And if Bush is re-elected will the war escalate?

Should I start playing those Tom Clancy video games to prepare for what seems to be the eagerly awaited arrival of Armegeddon?

We've got so many wars right now, do you think they would reschedule this one till 2006?

And finally, will they abide by the Geneva Conventions?

BIG_DADDY
07-11-2004, 09:48 PM
Straight from the mouth of James Dobson on t.v..

Refering to the constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage. He then likened it to D-Day and Stalingrad.

ROFL

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 09:48 PM
I'm NOT saying that they're the same, but people have to be held accountable for the language they use and this language is unmistakeable.

Odd that you would post this after the Democrat "love-fest" that featured Whoopi at her worst....

mmaddog
*******

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 09:51 PM
Odd that you would post this after the Democrat "love-fest" that featured Whoopi at her worst....

mmaddog
*******

why? what did that have to do with fundamentalist christianity and the proposed ban on gay marriage?


I was literally listening to this on t.v. as I was typing.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 09:51 PM
Anyone but me find it ironic that he referred to a minister who was arrested for using free speech.

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 09:54 PM
Anyone but me find it ironic that he referred to a minister who was arrested for using free speech.

probably not, since this isn't a question of free speech but rather about the content of what was already spoken....

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 09:55 PM
why? what did that have to do with fundamentalist christianity and the proposed ban on gay marriage?


I was literally listening to this on t.v. as I was typing.

So you have a problem with James Dobson making the comparison, but you have no problem whatosever with Whoopi making the Bush/sexual innuendos at a Democratic fund-raiser?

mmaddog
*******

go bowe
07-11-2004, 09:56 PM
* * *
I find it troubling to see the language of war transplanted to civil issues during a time of real war and real death. The idea that the most pressing issue facing this country (or even one of the top 100 issues) is the question of gay marriage is bizarre and out of all proportion, imho.
* * *
Are these Christians at war with their country? And if Bush is re-elected will the war escalate?
* * *
And finally, will they abide by the Geneva Conventions?no, not unless those low-down commie gay marriage types sign the geneva convention first... :p

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 09:57 PM
probably not, since this isn't a question of free speech but rather about the content of what was already spoken....
I guess if you believe in religious persecution, you wouldn't find any irony in the fact.

The agenda of the left is becoming more clear everyday. You are allowed the freedom of speech and admired for it, as long as it is what we want to hear.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 09:58 PM
I find it troubling to see the language of war transplanted to civil issues during a time of real war and real death.
"Iím a ****ing soldier!"
- Kellen Winslow Jr.
The idea that the most pressing issue facing this country (or even one of the top 100 issues) is the question of gay marriage is bizarre and out of all proportion, imho.

It's being used exactly like the issue of abortion is used. As a issue that cements the religious base against abandoning a party that doesn't represent most of their interests. Neither should be a top priority. But both are made out to be for political gain.

Donger
07-11-2004, 09:59 PM
"Iím a ****ing soldier!"
- Kellen Winslow Jr.

It's being used exactly like the issue of abortion is used. As a issue that cements the religious base against

You think that abortion is a religious issue?

WilliamTheIrish
07-11-2004, 10:00 PM
James Dobson..... The reason local cable access channels should never have been allowed.

I'm stocking up on ammo for the big civil war of values.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 10:01 PM
You think that abortion is a religious issue?
Not at all. :spock:

Logical
07-11-2004, 10:01 PM
You think that abortion is a religious issue?Come on even as a conservative I have to acknowledge it is more a religious issue than a conservative issue.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:02 PM
So you have a problem with James Dobson making the comparison, but you have no problem whatosever with Whoopi making the Bush/sexual innuendos at a Democratic fund-raiser?

mmaddog
*******i dunno about the can man, but i don't have a problem with either...

it think it's unfortunate that some have such hard-hearted views on gay marriage, but i don't have a problem with their right to express those views, however much i might disagree with them...

and i think it's unfortunate that the bushies are making such a big deal over the lame nightclub act of an over the hill comedian trying to be funny... well, it was funny, but even if it wasn't pretty good comedy material, whoopi still had the right to express her views...

now if she had made such comments on the senate floor, i would be more distressed...

Logical
07-11-2004, 10:02 PM
Not at all. :spock: OK that was weird. Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

WilliamTheIrish
07-11-2004, 10:03 PM
You think that abortion is a religious issue?

For millions of people, hell yes.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:06 PM
i dunno about the can man, but i don't have a problem with either...

it think it's unfortunate that some have such hard-hearted views on gay marriage, but i don't have a problem with their right to express those views, however much i might disagree with them...

and i think it's unfortunate that the bushies are making such a big deal over the lame nightclub act of an over the hill comedian trying to be funny... well, it was funny, but even if it wasn't pretty good comedy material, whoopi still had the right to express her views...

now if she had made such comments on the senate floor, i would be more distressed...
The difference is that Goldberg wasn't locked up for speaking her mind. While Sweden isn't America, it is disturbing that some Americans like this shock political jock would actually support such an action against any other human being.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:06 PM
Come on even as a conservative I have to acknowledge it is more a religious issue than a conservative issue.i agree with you on that...

i know personally a number of quite conservative people that are committed pro-lifers, especially the women...

i don't see abortion as a conservative issue at all, just religious...

the only arguments that i seem to hear against abortion is that it's murder because life begins at conception... i don't recall ever hearing any serious suggestion that there are other, non-religious grounds to oppose abortion...

jAZ
07-11-2004, 10:06 PM
OK that was weird. Is this supposed to be sarcasm?
with a hint of confusion.

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 10:09 PM
probably not, since this isn't a question of free speech but rather about the content of what was already spoken....

I have no idea what your point is. Are you for or against free speech. That you don't approve personally what the miniister said -- I could give a ****. I don't approve of a lot of the things the left on here says, but that's just me...

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:10 PM
The difference is that Goldberg wasn't locked up for speaking her mind. While Sweden isn't America, it is disturbing that some Americans like this shock political jock would actually support such an action against any other human being.ok, i haven't kept up with my current affairs (outside of what i read about on chiefs planet), so i'm not familiar with who got locked up and for what...

but who is the political jock that you are referring to?

and what action is that jock supporting?

i'm feeling a little lost in this discussion...

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 10:11 PM
So you have a problem with James Dobson making the comparison, but you have no problem whatosever with Whoopi making the Bush/sexual innuendos at a Democratic fund-raiser?

mmaddog
*******

I have no idea what she said.

But, regardless, it seems to me there is a world of difference between one person's unfunny comedy routine and the war rhetoric of ten's of thousands of fundamentalsit Christians.

My main response while listening/watching was bemusement. I knew about Dobson and his many followers, but I'd never really paid any attention. I was struck by the forcefulness of the rhetoric. The word "war" was used over and over. And I just wondered exactly what kind of war they imagine it to be.

I'm a-religious. My only desire is to be left alone by organized religion and to not be burned at the stake for being a non-believer. Pretty much America is a good country for that. But it did startle me to see an entire congregation "on the war path."

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 10:15 PM
I have no idea what your point is. Are you for or against free speech. That you don't approve personally what the miniister said -- I could give a ****. I don't approve of a lot of the things the left on here says, but that's just me...

I'm not questioning their right to say it. I am pro-free speech with extreme prejudice ROFL . Better to have the bigots and homophobes in plain sight than hiding in the shadows.

My interest was in their conception of the war metaphor...it was very strident with the D-Day references etc., just a case of cognitive dissonance on my part.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:16 PM
ok, i haven't kept up with my current affairs (outside of what i read about on chiefs planet), so i'm not familiar with who got locked up and for what...

but who is the political jock that you are referring to?

and what action is that jock supporting?

i'm feeling a little lost in this discussion...
The political pundit is James Dobson. Obviously he supports the idea of a Swedish Minister who was locked up this past week for speaking against homosexuals as per his interpretation of the Bible. The man posed no physical distress to anyone nor made any threats of any kind, but the Swedish officials locked him up.

While TC mentions his fear of the Religious Right, I am honestly reminded of the Christians set forth to lions in Ancient Rome. They too, locked up those that disagreed with their religious viewpoints and created mass propaganda against the Christians. In fact, most Romans believed Christians to be cannibals who ate their own children.

When people are locked up for speaking how they feel and other make television programs supporting the actions, I expect to see an Emporer's thumb at any moment deciding the life of those who worship differently than they do.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:17 PM
I'm not questioning their right to say it. I am pro-free speech with extreme prejudice ROFL . Better to have the bigots and homophobes in plain sight than hiding in the shadows.

My interest was in their conception of the war metaphor...it was very strident with the D-Day references etc., just a case of cognitive dissonance on my part.
Do you believe that people like the Swedish officials and Dobson help fuel that fire of "war"?

Personally, I don't see how someone couldn't.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 10:18 PM
the only arguments that i seem to hear against abortion is that it's murder because life begins at conception...
My wife and I were discussing Kerry's position as a pro-life Catholic who believes that life begins at conception. I was saying that I would have said (if I were him) that "I don't know when life begins... science hasn't been able to answer that question yet."

She pointed out that I don't see it from a Christian's POV, because I don't practice the faith. And that a Christian's FAITH tells them that life begins at conception, and that for a Christian, science isn't necessary.

I understood that in some sense, but it never really occured to me that maybe Christians don't even care what science says about the issue. I'm sure that's true for many Christians.

It makes for an interesting question. If science does/could determine
that seperate life begins say after the 3rd month. Would Christians then accept abortion in the first trimester?

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:19 PM
* * *
The word "war" was used over and over. And I just wondered exactly what kind of war they imagine it to be.
* * *
hmmmm... maybe fire raining down from heaven onto those soddomites??

(it would be interesting to hear the "war" described in greater detail, wouldn't it?)

looks like militant language is all the rage nowadays amongst your basic religious fundamentalists, just ask mullah omar...

Hel'n
07-11-2004, 10:20 PM
The political pundit is James Dobson. Obviously he supports the idea of a Swedish Minister who was locked up this past week for speaking against homosexuals as per his interpretation of the Bible. The man posed no physical distress to anyone nor made any threats of any kind, but the Swedish officials locked him up.

While TC mentions his fear of the Religious Right, I am honestly reminded of the Christians set forth to lions in Ancient Rome. They too, locked up those that disagreed with their religious viewpoints and created mass propaganda against the Christians. In fact, most Romans believed Christians to be cannibals who ate their own children.

When people are locked up for speaking how they feel and other make television programs supporting the actions, I expect to see an Emporer's thumb at any moment deciding the life of those who worship differently than they do.

You know, Christianity has massacred quite a few "unbelievers" in its time... and I worry they would gladly sacrifice someone like me to preserve their holiness...

:(

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 10:22 PM
i dunno about the can man, but i don't have a problem with either...

it think it's unfortunate that some have such hard-hearted views on gay marriage, but i don't have a problem with their right to express those views, however much i might disagree with them...

My point exactly...it's not OK to have someone express their POV if it is espousing religious values, but it is OK for someone to compare the present POTUS to sexual genitalia...you can't have it both ways, either it is free speech for all or no one.

and i think it's unfortunate that the bushies are making such a big deal over the lame nightclub act of an over the hill comedian trying to be funny... well, it was funny, but even if it wasn't pretty good comedy material, whoopi still had the right to express her views...

now if she had made such comments on the senate floor, i would be more distressed...

I wouldn't be surprised to hear she has been invited to speak somewhere in the Capitol area...

mmaddog
*******

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 10:23 PM
Do you believe that people like the Swedish officials and Dobson help fuel that fire of "war"?

Personally, I don't see how someone couldn't.

How someone couldn't help but be a part of the war?
or
How someone couldn't help but see them as fueling the fire of war?

sorry for the confusion...Dobson was absolutely stoking the fires....there was no doubt that there was no doubt in his mind that this was in some way a real war (which is what I'm trying to figure out)...does this type of "war" implicitly go beyond the contracts of our representative democracy and constitution, does it call for civil disobedience? armed resistance? theocracy?

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:23 PM
My wife and I were discussing Kerry's position as a pro-life Catholic who believes that life begins at conception. I was saying that I would have said (if I were him) that "I don't know when life begins... science hasn't been able to answer that question yet."

She pointed out that I don't see it from a Christian's POV, because I don't practice the faith. And that a Christian's FAITH tells them that life begins at conception, and that for a Christian, science isn't necessary.

I understood that in some sense, but it never really occured to me that maybe Christians don't even care what science says about the issue. I'm sure that's true for many Christians.

It makes for an interesting question. If science does/could determine
that seperate life begins say after the 3rd month. Would Christians then accept abortion in the first trimester?no, probably not... it'd still be murder, etc.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:25 PM
You know, Christianity has massacred quite a few "unbelievers" in its time... and I worry they would gladly sacrifice someone like me to preserve their holiness...

:(
When was the last time a transexual was murdered in the US in the name of Christianity?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


This is a human being who was locked up for being honest. And all you have is more fear to stoke on the fire.

tiptap
07-11-2004, 10:26 PM
The political pundit is James Dobson. Obviously he supports the idea of a Swedish Minister who was locked up this past week for speaking against homosexuals as per his interpretation of the Bible. The man posed no physical distress to anyone nor made any threats of any kind, but the Swedish officials locked him up.

While TC mentions his fear of the Religious Right, I am honestly reminded of the Christians set forth to lions in Ancient Rome. They too, locked up those that disagreed with their religious viewpoints and created mass propaganda against the Christians. In fact, most Romans believed Christians to be cannibals who ate their own children.

When people are locked up for speaking how they feel and other make television programs supporting the actions, I expect to see an Emporer's thumb at any moment deciding the life of those who worship differently than they do.

Let's not forget that the Christians didn't flench from removing the Christian sects that didn't follow the Council on Nicea edict once they became the official state religion under Constantine. Or that there were plenty of activity between Protestant and Catholic and Protestant and Protestant over who really was correct in interpreting the Bible. Even in the early colonies of this country, religious tolerance was not the norm. We are looking to keep both extremes from coming to fruition.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 10:28 PM
You know, Christianity has massacred quite a few "unbelievers" in its time... and I worry they would gladly sacrifice someone like me to preserve their holiness...

:(

True Christians don't massacre anyone...those who use religion as a facade for their warped view are the one's who massacre.

We wouldn't sacrifice you Hel'n..we'd keep you around to make fun of....(please take that as tongue-in-cheek and not at all serious)...

mmaddog
*******

Hel'n
07-11-2004, 10:30 PM
When was the last time a transexual was murdered in the US in the name of Christianity?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


This is a human being who was locked up for being honest. And all you have is more fear to stoke on the fire.

Are you kidding me?! Three so-called "Christians" killed a transsexual here in Orange County, California a couple of years ago...

My point is that if the church is condemning anyone different from themselves, that they are in a sense inciting violence against those of us who are different, whether by a freak of nature as in my case, or by choices we must make which I also had to make.

If I am minding my own business, ethical, living peacefully with my neighbors, then whether I am straight or gay, female, male or other, is nobody's, especially the church's, damn business.

And don't avoid the topic... the church has committed a LOT of atrocities in the name of God... or have you forgotten about the molested children? or the genocide of the "missions" in Central America during the age of conquest if the people didn't convert?

What don't you get?

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:31 PM
How someone couldn't help but be a part of the war?
or
How someone couldn't help but see them as fueling the fire of war?

sorry for the confusion...Dobson was absolutely stoking the fires....there was no doubt that there was no doubt in his mind that this was in some way a real war (which is what I'm trying to figure out)...does this type of "war" implicitly go beyond the contracts of our representative democracy and constitution, does it call for civil disobedience? armed resistance? theocracy?
I am telling you here and now, if (big IF) a "war" were declared against Christianity, I would gladly defend my right to worship my God to my death. I would use any ability before my death to send a message to all those who would support my actions in any way I could - electronic media, television, print, word of mouth etc.

Sweden may enjoy locking up those who speak their minds - it will not happen in our nation without blood being shed. That is not saying that I would physically attack anyone over my own body, but I certainly would make sure that only the most extreme force would have to be placed upon me to force me to comply - and then that would be in vain as well.

Now that my rant is over - I do believe their is a constant struggle for Christian vs. Non-Christian viewpoints in this nation. I believe that both sides struggle to legislate for or against religion. I also believe the media is pre-dominantly non-religious and promotes their agenda. And while the religious right is guilty of pushing their agenda to legal limits, the non-religious are just as guilty and for some reason get a free pass when it comes to the media and public perception.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:32 PM
The political pundit is James Dobson. Obviously he supports the idea of a Swedish Minister who was locked up this past week for speaking against homosexuals as per his interpretation of the Bible. The man posed no physical distress to anyone nor made any threats of any kind, but the Swedish officials locked him up.

While TC mentions his fear of the Religious Right, I am honestly reminded of the Christians set forth to lions in Ancient Rome. They too, locked up those that disagreed with their religious viewpoints and created mass propaganda against the Christians. In fact, most Romans believed Christians to be cannibals who ate their own children.

When people are locked up for speaking how they feel and other make television programs supporting the actions, I expect to see an Emporer's thumb at any moment deciding the life of those who worship differently than they do.apparently, that's against swedish law, which is ridiculous imo... (i just googled for the newstory)

but i don't see anybody getting locked up around here for speaking out on their position on homosexuality and just because some nutjob has a tv show and supports the actions of a foreign government, why would you worry that it will somehow become official government policy here?

the first amendment has survived until now, and i doubt that any american government would ever be able to prohibit free speech like what seems to have happened in sweden...


you know, maybe the two days and nights partying have dulled my senses so that i'm even duller than ususal... nah! :p :BLVD: :D

Hel'n
07-11-2004, 10:32 PM
True Christians don't massacre anyone...those who use religion as a facade for their warped view are the one's who massacre.

We wouldn't sacrifice you Hel'n..we'd keep you around to make fun of....(please take that as tongue-in-cheek and not at all serious)...

mmaddog
*******


Hey, I am totally with you on this one! Real Christians would NEVER use their beliefs to harm others. That I do believe.

And I'm glad you'd keep me around! :thumb:

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:33 PM
Are you kidding me?! Three so-called "Christians" killed a transsexual here in Orange County, California a couple of years ago...

My point is that if the church is condemning anyone different from themselves, that they are in a sense inciting violence against those of us who are different, whether by a freak of nature as in my case, or by choices we must make which I also had to make.

If I am minding my own business, ethical, living peacefully with my neighbors, then whether I am straight or gay, female, male or other, is nobody's, especially the church's, damn business.

And don't avoid the topic... the church has committed a LOT of atrocities in the name of God... or have you forgotten about the molested children? or the genocide of the "missions" in Central America during the age of conquest if the people didn't convert?

What don't you get?

Now you are playing Denise.

Did the Church kill the transexual in Orange county? Did the Church molest those children?

Using your trite analogy any homosexual who commits a murder is merely pushing the homosexual "murder agenda".

Please show me where ANY legitimate American Church has written doctrination stating it is okay to kill, persecute, or even hurt a homosexual or transexual. Your statement is false.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:35 PM
Let's not forget that the Christians didn't flench from removing the Christian sects that didn't follow the Council on Nicea edict once they became the official state religion under Constantine. Or that there were plenty of activity between Protestant and Catholic and Protestant and Protestant over who really was correct in interpreting the Bible. Even in the early colonies of this country, religious tolerance was not the norm. We are looking to keep both extremes from coming to fruition.
Hey, I understand and believe. The Inquistion was no joke. But the current swing of the pendulum is against Christianity based religions in this nation. As I stated, both sides are guilty of pushing their agenda to legislation. However, the non-religious currently have the advantage due to mass media control.

Cochise
07-11-2004, 10:35 PM
My point is that if the church is condemning anyone different from themselves, that they are in a sense inciting violence against those of us who are different


Does this stuff make sense in your head, or are you just repeating what the voices dictate?

Cochise
07-11-2004, 10:39 PM
You know, Christianity has massacred quite a few "unbelievers" in its time... and I worry they would gladly sacrifice someone like me to preserve their holiness...

:(

It's a laughable fallacy in logic to say 'adherents to X did Y so X must condone Y'

Hel'n
07-11-2004, 10:39 PM
Now you are playing Denise.

Did the Church kill the transexual in Orange county? Did the Church molest those children?

Using your trite analogy any homosexual who commits a murder is merely pushing the homosexual "murder agenda".

Please show me where ANY legitimate American Church has written doctrination stating it is okay to kill, persecute, or even hurt a homosexual or transexual. Your statement is false.


Oh gawd, you throw so much bullshit, Russ.

The Church didn't tell the priests to do what they did either. They just are men of God doing God's work right? And the missions in California were spreading the word of God. They didn't incite the "Christians" to kill the natives, right? And these sick dudes who professed their religious values that said a transsexual was wrong and killed her, the Church, again, has nothing to do with it, right?

Yeah, and it is this kind of twisted logic that allows you to permit the Bush Administration to stifle the Bill of Rights and decieve Congress and put out bullshit about how the terorrists were in Iraq...

But the White House didn't really tell a lie, right?

Gawd, what a reach...

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:39 PM
Are you kidding me?! Three so-called "Christians" killed a transsexual here in Orange County, California a couple of years ago...

My point is that if the church is condemning anyone different from themselves, that they are in a sense inciting violence against those of us who are different, whether by a freak of nature as in my case, or by choices we must make which I also had to make.

If I am minding my own business, ethical, living peacefully with my neighbors, then whether I am straight or gay, female, male or other, is nobody's, especially the church's, damn business.

And don't avoid the topic... the church has committed a LOT of atrocities in the name of God... or have you forgotten about the molested children? or the genocide of the "missions" in Central America during the age of conquest if the people didn't convert?

What don't you get?"condemning" is pretty strong language, missy...

btw, are you referring to a comdemnation to hell, or condemnation to death, or just condemnation to being called immoral and such every now and then? :shrug: :shrug: :BLVD: [glub][glub] :D

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 10:39 PM
I am telling you here and now, if (big IF) a "war" were declared against Christianity, I would gladly defend my right to worship my God to my death. I would use any ability before my death to send a message to all those who would support my actions in any way I could - electronic media, television, print, word of mouth etc.

Sweden may enjoy locking up those who speak their minds - it will not happen in our nation without blood being shed. That is not saying that I would physically attack anyone over my own body, but I certainly would make sure that only the most extreme force would have to be placed upon me to force me to comply - and then that would be in vain as well.

Now that my rant is over - I do believe their is a constant struggle for Christian vs. Non-Christian viewpoints in this nation. I believe that both sides struggle to legislate for or against religion. I also believe the media is pre-dominantly non-religious and promotes their agenda. And while the religious right is guilty of pushing their agenda to legal limits, the non-religious are just as guilty and for some reason get a free pass when it comes to the media and public perception.

Oh, I think maybe we're on different tracks. I was referring to the fundamentalist war against gay marriage as articulated by Dobson.

America is a thouroghly (sp?) Christian nation. I'm not aware of a movement, as large the fundamentalist Christians in this country, that uses the language of war/D-Day etc. against Christianity.

Hel'n
07-11-2004, 10:41 PM
"condemning" is pretty strong language, missy...

btw, are you referring to a comdemnation to hell, or condemnation to death, or just condemnation to being called immoral and such every now and then? :shrug: :shrug: :BLVD: [glub][glub] :D

You'd have to ask the Rev Fred Phelps of Topeka...

;)

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:43 PM
Oh gawd, you throw so much bullshit, Russ.

The Church didn't tell the priests to do what they did either. They just are men of God doing God's work right? And the missions in California were spreading the word of God. They didn't incite the "Christians" to kill the natives, right? And these sick dudes who professed their religious values that said a transsexual was wrong and killed her, the Church, again, has nothing to do with it, right?

Yeah, and it is this kind of twisted logic that allows you to permit the Bush Administration to stifle the Bill of Rights and decieve Congress and put out bullshit about how the terorrists were in Iraq...

But the White House didn't tell really lie right?

Gawd, what a reach...must...not...give...in...to...temptation...

don't...say...it... must...not...say...aound... :rolleyes:

Cochise
07-11-2004, 10:43 PM
You'd have to ask the Rev Fred Phelps of Topeka...

;)

See, you've got no problem painting the whole of Christianity with the brush of people like Phelps and the Inquisitors, or a few individuals who did somethign else wrong, but if I said something like "homosexuals are pedophiles waiting to happen" or that homosexuals were dangerous to society in some way you'd be all over me.

Smell the hypocrisy?

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:43 PM
Oh gawd, you throw so much bullshit, Russ.

The Church didn't tell the priests to do what they did either. They just are men of God doing God's work right? And the missions in California were spreading the word of God. They didn't incite the "Christians" to kill the natives, right? And these sick dudes who professed their religious values said a transsexual was wrong, the Church, again, has nothing to do with it, right?

Yeah, and it is this kind of twisted logic that allows you to permit the Bush Administration to stifle the Bill of Rights and decieve Congress and put out bullshit about how the terorrists were in Iraq...

But the White House didn't tell really lie right?

Gawd, what a reach...
You know, for someone who hates the stereotypical stuff, you sure don't mind using it to your advantage, do you?

First of all, stop the deflection. We aren't speaking of the WH right now. You know your story is weak, so you go off on a tangent.

Secondly, there is no agenda by any Church in the US to harm anyone. Your ascribing the religious beliefs of wacko murderers as the norm for any legitimate religious institution shows you to be a paranoid wacko, a liar, or an agendist.

Using your weak analogy we must assume that all homosexuals are pedophilic killers like John Wayne Gacy or serial killers like Henry Lee Lucas. Or perhaps all homosexuals hate black people like Jeffrey Dahmer did?


You are using the same "scare tactics" that the morons who argue against homosexuals are using in reverse.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:45 PM
Oh, I think maybe we're on different tracks. I was referring to the fundamentalist war against gay marriage as articulated by Dobson.

America is a thouroghly (sp?) Christian nation. I'm not aware of a movement, as large the fundamentalist Christians in this country, that uses the language of war/D-Day etc. against Christianity.
If that is all, then I think Dobson was out of material. As far as I can see, there is no mass "war" movement in any church against homosexual marriage.

Yes, we disagree with it, but I don't see someone taking arms for it.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:45 PM
You'd have to ask the Rev Fred Phelps of Topeka...

;)but, but...

i don't care what fred says...

i wanna know what the precious says...

er... the lady (too much lotr lately)...

Donger
07-11-2004, 10:45 PM
Not at all. :spock:

Okay. Just seeing where you are.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 10:46 PM
You'd have to ask the Rev Fred Phelps of Topeka...

;)

Fred Phelps speaks only for himself...please don't lump him with true Christians...no Christian I know has hate in his heart like FP.

mmaddog
*******

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:46 PM
See, you've got no problem painting the whole of Christianity with the brush of people like Phelps and the Inquisitors, or a few individuals who did somethign else wrong, but if I said something like "homosexuals are pedophiles waiting to happen" or that homosexuals were dangerous to society in some way you'd be all over me.

Smell the hypocrisy?
Wow, you beat me. Glad I am not the only one that sees the bigoted storyteller complaining about bigots.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 10:47 PM
It's a laughable fallacy in logic to say 'adherents to X did Y so X must condone Y'
Christians and conservatives do that all the time around here with the Muslim religion and terrorism. Why should Christians be treated any differently?

Donger
07-11-2004, 10:48 PM
Come on even as a conservative I have to acknowledge it is more a religious issue than a conservative issue.

I understand that. But being a non-religious conservative, I just wanted to see where jAZ was coming from. Personally, I don't think that abortion is a religious issue, per se. I think it is a moral issue. I know that some people equate moraility with religious belief (or a lack thereof without), but I just don't think that way.

IMO, they are mutually exclusive to a certain extent.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:50 PM
Fred Phelps speaks only for himself...please don't lump him with true Christians...no Christian I know has hate in his heart like FP.

mmaddog
*******
As far as I know, Phelps has never taken to violence against a homosexual.

I don't like his message. But if we are locking him up for speaking his mind, let's lock up Jessie Jackson, Newt Gingrich, and Michael Moore for spreading their own message of hate.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 10:51 PM
Christians and conservatives do that all the time around here with the Muslim religion and terrorism. Why should Christians be treated any differently?
You see, intolerance is abundant with the liberals. They just hide it under a different guise.

Cochise
07-11-2004, 10:53 PM
Christians and conservatives do that all the time around here with the Muslim religion and terrorism. Why should Christians be treated any differently?

X may in fact condone Y. I am saying that coincidence does not imply causation. It may be true, but it's not necessarily true.

I don't care what terrorists believe. When they blow up children on busses or hack people's heads off that's all you need to know.

I don't give a rip what their motivation is. When they behave in that way they are incompatible with a civilized world. It may in fact be that Islam teaches everyone should kill the infidels. I know quotes from the Koran can be produced to that effect. But I don't know and nor do I care.

I think that liberalism showing in your viewpoint... the motivation of the terrorists matters to you in some way...

manny
07-11-2004, 10:53 PM
I'm not questioning their right to say it. I am pro-free speech with extreme prejudice ROFL . Better to have the bigots and homophobes in plain sight than hiding in the shadows.

My interest was in their conception of the war metaphor...it was very strident with the D-Day references etc., just a case of cognitive dissonance on my part.

It's a dangerous thing, and it's not a sloppy or overzealous use of rhetoric either, or a matter of "free speech" in the abstract. It's about building an ideological justification for a course of action. Look back at rhetoric from the fascists during the 20s and 30s and you'll see the same kind of images and inferences.

Donger
07-11-2004, 10:54 PM
Christians and conservatives do that all the time around here with the Muslim religion and terrorism. Why should Christians be treated any differently?

I suppose you'd have a point; that is if Christians were presently strapping bombs onto their chests, and killing innocent people in the name of Jesus Christ.

tiptap
07-11-2004, 10:55 PM
True Christians don't massacre anyone...those who use religion as a facade for their warped view are the one's who massacre.

We wouldn't sacrifice you Hel'n..we'd keep you around to make fun of....(please take that as tongue-in-cheek and not at all serious)...

mmaddog
*******

Can Christians make war on anyone? Massacre implies people who do not have weapons, women and children being killed. God never condones that in the Bible (Deut. 3:6). Never allows it to happen just to fulfil prophecy. (Matt. 2:16) I get confused knowing when it justified to kill and when it is not. So why is it that I should have confidence in
anyone's skill in divining God's present state of thinking.

Logical
07-11-2004, 10:57 PM
It's a laughable fallacy in logic to say 'adherents to X did Y so X must condone Y'

While it is faulty logic the statement I believe is based on a real life experience coupled with fear as an emotion and is therefore real and must be accepted for itself, logic be damned.

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 10:57 PM
Christians and conservatives do that all the time around here with the Muslim religion and terrorism. Why should Christians be treated any differently? Look around the world. Virtually all armed struggles involve Muslim aggression against non-Muslims. Does that mean all Muslims are warmongers? No. But there is certainly a worldwide "Muslim" problem. Comparing that to some isolated instance of Christian violence is ludicrous.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 10:58 PM
I understand that. But being a non-religious conservative, I just wanted to see where jAZ was coming from. Personally, I don't think that abortion is a religious issue, per se. I think it is a moral issue. I know that some people equate moraility with religious belief (or a lack thereof without), but I just don't think that way.

IMO, they are mutually exclusive to a certain extent.ok, but don't those morals come from some sort of religious belief??

i mean, how does one justify opposing abortion on moral grounds without asserting that life begins at conception?

to say that baby's have rights is to ascribe (legal) "personhood" on the "baby" as of the time of conception, and that is a religious precept...

i just don't see how one can seperate "moral" and "religious" on this issue...

i don't believe (legal) life begins at conception, which means i don't believe what some churches teach...

but i don't see how i could be morally against abortion unless i subscribed to the religious tenet that "life" begins at conception (despite the fact that embryos are not viable until some later time in the pregancy)...

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 10:59 PM
Can Christians make war on anyone? Massacre implies people who do not have weapons, women and children being killed. God never condones that in the Bible (Deut. 3:6). Never allows it to happen just to fulfil prophecy. (Matt. 2:16) I get confused knowing when it justified to kill and when it is not. So why is it that I should have confidence in
anyone's skill in divining God's present state of thinking.

I am no expert on the Bible, but isn't Armegeddon the killing of everyone who isn't Christian? Basically a big giant massacre?

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:00 PM
I suppose you'd have a point; that is if Christians were presently strapping bombs onto their chests, and killing innocent people in the name of Jesus Christ.
The Christians I've seen are staying alive after killing in the name of Jesus Christ, but I guess that's different enough to make it ok.

I'm willing to admit that its ridiculous practice in both cases. There are a lot of people around here who are happy with an anti-Muslim double standard.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:00 PM
While it is faulty logic the statement I believe is based on a real life experience coupled with fear as an emotion and is therefore real and must be accepted for itself, logic be damned.and this, coming from LOGICAL????? :p ROFL ROFL ROFL

Cochise
07-11-2004, 11:01 PM
Look around the world. Virtually all armed struggles involve Muslim aggression against non-Muslims.

I don't have the numbers but I bet if you did some research into all the active armed conflicts going on in the world right now, you'd be right.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:01 PM
I am no expert on the Bible, but isn't Armegeddon the killing of everyone who isn't Christian? Basically a big giant massacre?
Actually, per my understanding, Christians will ascend long before Armageddon. Prior to the advent of the Apocalypse, the non-believers will hunt and kill the undecided and converted with the legal right of earthly leaders. The non-believers will suffer the plagues of God and when Jesus returns, the non-believers will be cast into eternal damnation.

There is nothing I have read that states the Christians will kill anyone.

Cochise
07-11-2004, 11:01 PM
I am no expert on the Bible, but isn't Armegeddon the killing of everyone who isn't Christian? Basically a big giant massacre?

No...

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:02 PM
I don't have the numbers but I bet if you did some research into all the active armed conflicts going on in the world right now, you'd be right.

I have seen the numbers. I don't have a link handy, but for all practical purposes, it's every single conflict.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:02 PM
The Christians I've seen are staying alive after killing in the name of Jesus Christ, but I guess that's different enough to make it ok.



You know Christians who have killed in the name of Christ? What neighborhood do you live in?

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:03 PM
The Christians I've seen are staying alive after killing in the name of Jesus Christ, but I guess that's different enough to make it ok.

I'm willing to admit that its ridiculous practice in both cases. There are a lot of people around here who are happy with an anti-Muslim double standard.are you going by the number of people or the number of posts?? :p :rolleyes: :D

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:05 PM
ok, but don't those morals come from some sort of religious belief??


I know it's weird, but no. My opposition has no foundation in religion. I wasn't raised with religion (LONG story) but for me it's a simple case of logic. A fertilized egg will, without nature or a doctor intruding, become a living human. Therefore, any intrusion upon that coming to fruition is wrong and contrary to the continutation of humanity. I make exceptions in the case of incest or rape, however (i.e., no choice).

Also, as a conservative, I believe in the least amount of government intrusion into my life. This is one of the issues that I obviously have problems with my conservative friends. I don't want the government in my pocketbook; do I really want them in my wife's womb?

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:05 PM
I have seen the numbers. I don't have a link handy, but for all practical purposes, it's every single conflict.
S vs N Korea?

China vs Hong Kong?

China vs Tibet?

South American conflicts?


While the Muslim vs Non-Muslim are definitely the majority, they aren't the only ones.

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 11:05 PM
Actually, per my understanding, Christians will ascend long before Armageddon. Prior to the advent of the Apocalypse, the non-believers will hunt and kill the undecided and converted with the legal right of earthly leaders. The non-believers will suffer the plagues of God and when Jesus returns, the non-believers will be cast into eternal damnation.

There is nothing I have read that states the Christians will kill anyone.

gotcha...the Big Man does the killing (errr, damning), makes sense...I guess :eek:

I'm really going to have a sweet tan in the after world.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:07 PM
Can Christians make war on anyone? Massacre implies people who do not have weapons, women and children being killed. God never condones that in the Bible (Deut. 3:6). Never allows it to happen just to fulfil prophecy. (Matt. 2:16) I get confused knowing when it justified to kill and when it is not. So why is it that I should have confidence in
anyone's skill in divining God's present state of thinking.

Sorry tiptap...

It's not that easy...

Matthew 2:16 talks of Herod instructing his soldiers to kill all the boys of Bethlehem and it's vicinity because the Magi had outwitted him. God didn't instruct Herod to do that...Herod did that of his own free will and out of fear.

Deut 3:6 discusses the destruction of all kingdoms that were at war literally....

What you are trying to do is compare two different situations and fit them under one neat umbrella....

mmaddog
*******

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:07 PM
gotcha...the Big Man does the killing (errr, damning), makes sense...I guess :eek:

I'm really going to have a sweet tan in the after world.
All joking aside. I don't believe you will be sitting in a lake of fire awaiting your turn to have a pineapple shoved up your butt each day.

I do believe you will exist for all eternity in abject despair and the total absence of hope - which would be worse than any physical pain anyone could muster.

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:08 PM
The Christians I've seen are staying alive after killing in the name of Jesus Christ, but I guess that's different enough to make it ok.

I'm willing to admit that its ridiculous practice in both cases. There are a lot of people around here who are happy with an anti-Muslim double standard.

WTF? Where are the national security issues involving Christians? Earth to Jaz: We are in a war against radical Islam. People are dying. People are getting beheaded. Trains are getting blown up. There are holes in the ground where skyscrapers used to be.

Cochise
07-11-2004, 11:08 PM
I have seen the numbers. I don't have a link handy, but for all practical purposes, it's every single conflict.

I'd look it up if I weren't about to go to sleep.

That would be a good topic for a thread. I can't think of a single active conflict that doesn't involve it right now, actually. I'm sure there has to be at least one.

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:10 PM
The Christians I've seen are staying alive after killing in the name of Jesus Christ, but I guess that's different enough to make it ok.

Okay. Can you name ONE?

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:10 PM
I don't have the numbers but I bet if you did some research into all the active armed conflicts going on in the world right now, you'd be right.well, not all of them...

you have israel which is establishing itself by arms (which has so far only been partially sucessful)...

and you have the non-muslim blacks in most of africa killing other non-muslim blacks mainly because they are from different tribes...

and you have the balkan conflicts where most of the aggression was towards muslims in kosovo, not by muslims...

then there's iraq, where some would say the aggression was by non-muslims against muslims... (not that i would agree, mind you)

there may be others that i'm not thinking of, but i don't think it's a fair characterization to say that most of the armed conflicts are a result of muslim aggression against non-muslims... :shake: :shake: :shake:

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:10 PM
S vs N Korea?

China vs Hong Kong?

China vs Tibet?

South American conflicts?


While the Muslim vs Non-Muslim are definitely the majority, they aren't the only ones.

Come on. When you hear about casualties of war, it involves Muslims. Point me to some links where there are substansial casualties regarding the above mentioned conflicts.

the Talking Can
07-11-2004, 11:10 PM
All joking aside. I don't believe you will be sitting in a lake of fire awaiting your turn to have a pineapple shoved up your butt each day.

I do believe you will exist for all eternity in abject despair and the total absence of hope - which would be worse than any physical pain anyone could muster.

Can I bring my GameBoy?

Logical
07-11-2004, 11:10 PM
and this, coming from LOGICAL????? :p ROFL ROFL ROFL

Actually logic says fear trumps logic every time so what I said was logical.;)

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:11 PM
WTF? Where are the national security issues involving Christians? Earth to Jaz: We are in a war against radical Islam. People are dying. People are getting beheaded. Trains are getting blown up. There are holes in the ground where skyscrapers used to be.
Not according to Rove and Bush. We are in a war against terror(ism). Fundamentalist Christian terrorists aren't given immunity from this war.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:11 PM
I'd look it up if I weren't about to go to sleep.

That would be a good topic for a thread. I can't think of a single active conflict that doesn't involve it right now, actually. I'm sure there has to be at least one.
See below

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:12 PM
WTF? Where are the national security issues involving Christians? Earth to Jaz: We are in a war against radical Islam. People are dying. People are getting beheaded. Trains are getting blown up. There are holes in the ground where skyscrapers used to be.

Bravo.

And, I wish that Bush would say the same. These radical Islamists don't give a sh*t if I'm a Christian, Jew, Hindu or Bhuddist. All they care about is that I'm not one of them.

Personally, I'd like Bush to say that if they spill any more blood, we nuke Mecca and Medina. Then we'd see exactly how "religious" they really are.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:13 PM
Okay. Can you name ONE?
Eric Rudolph

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:13 PM
Come on. When you hear about casualties of war, it involves Muslims. Point me to some links where there are substansial casualties regarding the above mentioned conflicts.
The quote was "They aren't the only ones". That is a false statement.

As I said, the majority of conflicts in the world today are definitely Islamic in origin, but they are not the only ones. Hell, look in Africa at half of the nations there.

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:14 PM
Eric Rudolph

Oh good lord.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:15 PM
I know it's weird, but no. My opposition has no foundation in religion. I wasn't raised with religion (LONG story) but for me it's a simple case of logic. A fertilized egg will, without nature or a doctor intruding, become a living human. Therefore, any intrusion upon that coming to fruition is wrong and contrary to the continutation of humanity. I make exceptions in the case of incest or rape, however (i.e., no choice).

Also, as a conservative, I believe in the least amount of government intrusion into my life. This is one of the issues that I obviously have problems with my conservative friends. I don't want the government in my pocketbook; do I really want them in my wife's womb?well, first, if abortion is interfering with procreation (the continuation of humanity, as you put it), then shouldn't birth control be proscribed?

and as far as governmental intrusion, isn't it less intrusive for the government to stay the hell out of people's lives by not outlawing abortion? the government is not going into the womb, it is trying to outlaw someone else doing it even when THE MOTHER WANTS it done...

manny
07-11-2004, 11:15 PM
I guess if you believe in religious persecution, you wouldn't find any irony in the fact.

The agenda of the left is becoming more clear everyday. You are allowed the freedom of speech and admired for it, as long as it is what we want to hear.

How the hell would you know anything about what "the left" thinks about this? Would it surprise you to know that there is a very divided opinion of "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws among "the left"? Of course it would, because you don't know what you're talking about. Many are opposed to these laws because they provide the State (run by and for the rich after all) an opportunity to persecute labor unions, anti-war activists, and yes, abortion-rights supporters when needed. I think the best way to deal with these types is a gigantic show of protest, not to make a "martyr" of him by tossing him in jail, as well as demobilizing his opponents and setting a precedent for the same laws to boomerang back on opponents of bigotry at a later date.

And as for this being about Christianity, which Christianity? The one that infers homosexuality is sinful, or the one that says "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?" To the extent that a section of organized religion falls on one side of this debate, there are other, organized churches that take the other view. I don't doubt that there are Christians who disagree entirely with this persons views on homosexuals and their rights, and their disagreements are based on religious teachings contained in the Bible.

tiptap
07-11-2004, 11:17 PM
Actually, per my understanding, Christians will ascend long before Armageddon. Prior to the advent of the Apocalypse, the non-believers will hunt and kill the undecided and converted with the legal right of earthly leaders. The non-believers will suffer the plagues of God and when Jesus returns, the non-believers will be cast into eternal damnation.

There is nothing I have read that states the Christians will kill anyone.

Paul killed someone for lying to him and then also the spouse (Act 3). Now you could argue that is was God but it happen at Paul's pronoucement. If God was the judge Paul acted as the executioner in timing the events.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:17 PM
The quote was "They aren't the only ones". That is a false statement.

As I said, the majority of conflicts in the world today are definitely Islamic in origin, but they are not the only ones. Hell, look in Africa at half of the nations there.other than the sudan (which is arab muslims attacking black african muslims), name one african country where the root of the conflict is muslim aggressoin against nonmuslims rather than one tribe against another...

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:18 PM
well, first, if abortion is interfering with procreation (the continuation of humanity, as you put it), then shouldn't birth control be proscribed?

and as far as governmental intrusion, isn't it less intrusive for the government to stay the hell out of people's lives by not outlawing abortion? the government is not going into the womb, it is trying to outlaw someone else doing it even when THE MOTHER WANTS it done...

I don't think that it's the government's place to have any say with regards to abortion. I think it should be a personal decision.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:18 PM
Can I bring my GameBoy?

maybe your version of Hell will be like the one a buddy of mine says his will be....

He says his version of Hell will be one where all the women he has ever wanted to sleep with want him too, but he can never get it up to do the job.

mmaddog
*******

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:20 PM
The quote was "They aren't the only ones". That is a false statement.

As I said, the majority of conflicts in the world today are definitely Islamic in origin, but they are not the only ones. Hell, look in Africa at half of the nations there.

Ummm...that's why there are so many wars in Africa -- the Muslims vs. non-Muslims.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:22 PM
Paul killed someone for lying to him and then also the spouse (Act 3). Now you could argue that is was God but it happen at Paul's pronoucement. If God was the judge Paul acted as the executioner in timing the events.

Help me out here...where in Acts 3 did Paul kill someone?

If you are talking about the stoning of Stephen, then that happened in Acts 7....and that was in the time in which Paul was known as Saul before his conversion.

mmaddog
*******

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:23 PM
How the hell would you know anything about what "the left" thinks about this? Would it surprise you to know that there is a very divided opinion of "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws among "the left"? Of course it would, because you don't know what you're talking about. Many are opposed to these laws because they provide the State (run by and for the rich after all) an opportunity to persecute labor unions, anti-war activists, and yes, abortion-rights supporters when needed. I think the best way to deal with these types is a gigantic show of protest, not to make a "martyr" of him by tossing him in jail, as well as demobilizing his opponents and setting a precedent for the same laws to boomerang back on opponents of bigotry at a later date.

And as for this being about Christianity, which Christianity? The one that infers homosexuality is sinful, or the one that says "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?" To the extent that a section of organized religion falls on one side of this debate, there are other, organized churches that take the other view. I don't doubt that there are Christians who disagree entirely with this persons views on homosexuals and their rights, and their disagreements are based on religious teachings contained in the Bible.

Yeah, it's really the libertarian right pushing all these thought crime laws....all these speech codes at universities -- again, it's the right imposing them. What a lot of condescending bullshit.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:23 PM
How the hell would you know anything about what "the left" thinks about this? Would it surprise you to know that there is a very divided opinion of "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws among "the left"? Of course it would, because you don't know what you're talking about. Many are opposed to these laws because they provide the State (run by and for the rich after all) an opportunity to persecute labor unions, anti-war activists, and yes, abortion-rights supporters when needed. I think the best way to deal with these types is a gigantic show of protest, not to make a "martyr" of him by tossing him in jail, as well as demobilizing his opponents and setting a precedent for the same laws to boomerang back on opponents of bigotry at a later date.

And as for this being about Christianity, which Christianity? The one that infers homosexuality is sinful, or the one that says "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?" To the extent that a section of organized religion falls on one side of this debate, there are other, organized churches that take the other view. I don't doubt that there are Christians who disagree entirely with this persons views on homosexuals and their rights, and their disagreements are based on religious teachings contained in the Bible.

Do you want all points addressed in one post?

#1. How would I know? Personal experience, viewpoints of agendist laws both attempted and implemented, family experience, the voice of the left on this board. I think that is sufficient to base an opinion upon

#2. I agree with your protest option. It would speak volumes and actually educate people. I never stated I agreed with the moron, I stated he had the right to give his viewpoint without fear of retribution and incarceration.

#3. Judge not or lest ye be judged. Ahh, the old adage thrown by the extreme left, and ALWAYS screwed up with their horrid interpretation. The statement was made to men preparing to stone a whore who was screwing a married man. The man in question was not charged with any crime and the woman was to suffer death. Jesus Christ made a simple statement regarding the unequal treatment of both offenders and the fact that most of the men who were to throw those stones were guilty of their own whores. It was not an all-encompassing legal statement, it was a point of hypocrisy regarding sex and the sexes. Applying your immature analogy to the issue, no one would ever be convicted of any crime as none of us would ever be worthy of judging them criminals.

#4. I agree. There are a great many Christians who have no trouble with homosexuals who are good Christians. There are also a great many who perceive the act as a sin, that does not mean they take action against the sinner. The man arrested did nothing to any other person.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:23 PM
Oh good lord.
I think that's one of the things they say as they are blowing up an abortion clinic. Or gunning down an abortion doctor.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:24 PM
other than the sudan (which is arab muslims attacking black african muslims), name one african country where the root of the conflict is muslim aggressoin against nonmuslims rather than one tribe against another...
That was my point. I think you misread my statement.

tiptap
07-11-2004, 11:24 PM
All joking aside. I don't believe you will be sitting in a lake of fire awaiting your turn to have a pineapple shoved up your butt each day.

I do believe you will exist for all eternity in abject despair and the total absence of hope - which would be worse than any physical pain anyone could muster.

I have family that feel the same or nearly so the same as you. I may feel pain but not total dispair for I will know (for I do get to see the judgement right) that some of them made it to heaven. Some days I'll curse others I will consider their success.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:26 PM
Not according to Rove and Bush. We are in a war against terror(ism). Fundamentalist Christian terrorists aren't given immunity from this war.jaz, jaz, jaz...

and i thought i was f#cked up after 2 days of partying and drinking, but wtf are you talking about? "fundamentalist christian terrorists"???

a few abortion related murders and a clinic bombing now and then do not equate with terrorists, sorry...

terrorists are people who kill large numbers of innocent people to terrorize the living... like al quaeda... not fred phelps... or whoever... :shake: :shake: :shake:

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:28 PM
I don't think that it's the government's place to have any say with regards to abortion. I think it should be a personal decision.oh then, never mind... :thumb:

(i agree with you completely on this one!!)

tiptap
07-11-2004, 11:29 PM
Help me out here...where in Acts 3 did Paul kill someone?

If you are talking about the stoning of Stephen, then that happened in Acts 7....and that was in the time in which Paul was known as Saul before his conversion.

mmaddog
*******

Sorry Acts 5? Ananias and Sapphira story.

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:30 PM
I think that's one of the things they say as they are blowing up an abortion clinic. Or gunning down an abortion doctor.

How many of those occur per decade? Just a rough guess?

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:32 PM
Paul killed someone for lying to him and then also the spouse (Act 3). Now you could argue that is was God but it happen at Paul's pronoucement. If God was the judge Paul acted as the executioner in timing the events.
In the Acts of Paul, Paul heals Hermocreates. Dion, his son, is struck dead by God as he wanted Hermippus dead and was angry at Paul for helping him.

In Acts itself, Paul is not mentioned in Chapter 3

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:32 PM
jaz, jaz, jaz...

and i thought i was f#cked up after 2 days of partying and drinking, but wtf are you talking about? "fundamentalist christian terrorists"???

a few abortion related murders and a clinic bombing now and then do not equate with terrorists, sorry...

terrorists are people who kill large numbers of innocent people to terrorize the living... like al quaeda... not fred phelps... or whoever... :shake: :shake: :shake:
Terrorists are people who use terror for a religious/political purpose manipulation. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. UBL is a terrorists.

Check out the Patriot Act, the Bush administration actually defines what terrorism is. We don't need to play this game. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists now, both morally and now legally speaking.

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:32 PM
That was my point. I think you misread my statement.

Nigeria. Remeber when the Muslims went on a rampage because of the beauty pageant? There are more than that, too.

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:33 PM
I think that's one of the things they say as they are blowing up an abortion clinic. Or gunning down an abortion doctor.

I don't know. And, nor do I really care. They are wackos in every "religion." Although I'd venture that more Christians condemned Rudolph's actions than did Muslims condemn the "suicide bombers" in Israel.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:34 PM
Sorry Acts 5? Ananias and Sapphira story.

Right Chapter...wrong person....

Peter chastised them for hiding their inability to share, by telling them God saw their greed....Ananias fell to his feet in fear and died....Peter didn't "kill" him.

And he didn't kill Sapphira either...he exposed her greed and she fell down and died also....

It wasn't Paul... and no one was killed by human hands....they died in their fears.


mmaddog
*******

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:34 PM
Terrorists are people who use terror for a religious/political purpose manipulation. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. UBL is a terrorists.

Check out the Patriot Act, the Bush administration actually defines what terrorism is. We don't need to play this game. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists now, both morally and now legally speaking.

And out of our anti-terror budget, what would be the optimal allocation spent fighting and preventing Christian terrorists versus Muslim terrorists? How should we spend to prevent the most murders?

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:36 PM
That was my point. I think you misread my statement.oops...

i see now that you were saying africa is an example of where conflicts are not muslim aggression...

i guess i would go further and say that most conflicts today are NOT muslim aggression but good old fashioned hatred and greed run amok...

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:36 PM
Fundamentalist Christian terrorists aren't given immunity from this war.
Nope... they are not...
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act:
domestic terrorism is an "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:37 PM
Sorry Acts 5? Ananias and Sapphira story.
Ananias was struck dead by God himself, as well as Sapphira. Both had committed a vow to God regarding their land and deliberately disregarded that vow.

Ananias fell dead at Peter's feet when he admitted his sin, Sapphira did the same when she saw Ananias and admitted her culpability as well.

Paul did not kill either.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:37 PM
I think that's one of the things they say as they are blowing up an abortion clinic. Or gunning down an abortion doctor.

That's weak...very weak.

Just because someone uses the name of the Lord in what he does, DOES NOT mean that the Lord condones it.

mmaddog
*******

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:38 PM
I think that's one of the things they say as they are blowing up an abortion clinic. Or gunning down an abortion doctor.

And, jAZ, I sure hope you're not of the opinion that the radical Islamists are targeting only Christians. They want all NON-MUSLIMS dead. That includes a whole lot of people.

I may be being presumptuous, but I assume that means you as well.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:39 PM
Ananias was struck dead by God himself, as well as Sapphira. Both had committed a vow to God regarding their land and deliberately disregarded that vow.

Ananias fell dead at Peter's feet when he admitted his sin, Sapphira did the same when she saw Ananias and admitted her culpability as well.

Paul did not kill either.

see my note above...it was Peter, not Paul. Paul had not had his conversion at that time, he was still going under the name of Saul and was killing Christians if i remember right.

mmaddog
*******

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:40 PM
And out of our anti-terror budget, what would be the optimal allocation spent fighting and preventing Christian terrorists versus Muslim terrorists? How should we spend to prevent the most murders?
Fewer cases does equate to fewer dollars spent in deterance. But it doesn't change the nature of the action. Fundamentalism is the common thread in the cause of terrorism. Not the religion.

Christians aren't terrorists by nature. Muslims aren't terrorists by nature. Fundamentalism is the problem.

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:41 PM
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2004/06/22/news/nation/8972893.htm?1c

SOKOTO, Nigeria - Saluted by sword-waving Muslim warriors on horses and camels, African presidents and emirs yesterday celebrated the 200th anniversary of a holy war that launched the sub-Sahara's greatest Islamic empire.

They also urged an end to rising Christian-Muslim violence that has killed thousands in northern Nigeria.

The appeals for peace - evoking six years of fiery religious rampages by machete-waving mobs in Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation - overlaid a day of musket-blasting pageantry in Sokoto, capital of the 19th-century Sokoto caliphate, or kingdom.

President Olusegun Obasanjo, a Christian from the south, condemned culprits of both faiths for the rising bloodshed in the nation's modern-day holy wars.

"Anyone who burns houses or places of worship, either mosques or churches" is an "infidel," said Obasanjo, who wore the brown embroidered caftan and towering white headdress of northern Muslims in a gesture of Muslim-Christian conciliation.

Obasanjo's 1999 election, ending 15 years of repressive junta rule, unleashed religious, ethnic and political turmoil that since has claimed more than 10,000 lives in Nigeria.

Explosions of Muslim-Christian violence have killed hundreds this year alone - most recently last month in Adamawa state, where dozens died in clashes over the height of a mosque's minarets next to the palace of a Christian tribal chief.

In May, religious slaughter led Obasanjo to declare emergency rule in one state for the first time in his six-year effort to cement civilian rule.

Obasanjo yesterday recalled the successes of the long-ago African empire, before the advent of the West.

"Contrary to the misrepresentations of some... we were already a highly organized people before the arrival of the adventurers of colonization," the Nigerian leader said.

Sokoto, in Nigeria's north, stood until British colonial rule as the center of a Muslim kingdom that spanned parts of six modern African nations - Nigeria, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, Niger and Burkina Faso.

Itinerant preacher Shehu Usman dan Fodio catapulted the kingdom into being with a 1804-1808 holy war launched against infidels and wayward Muslims.

The June 19, 1804, battle of Tafkin Kwatto, a village about 60 miles from Sokoto, was widely seen as the war's turning point.

The victory of what some historians term West Africa's "French Revolution" sparked copycat jihads across the arid savannah plains of Senegal, Mali, Ivory Coast, Chad, Central African Republic and Sudan.

In Sokoto's central square yesterday, Muslim Hausa and Fulani fighters in flowing robes and medieval battle garb paid fierce homage to that history. Riding tasseled horses and camels, hundreds of warriors clutching swords, spears and battle axes saluted Obasanjo, three former Nigerian presidents, and the leaders of Ghana, Chad and Niger.

In rare public comments, the current sultan of Sokoto declared that the 19th-century jihad fighter's cause had nothing to do with the rampages of today.

"I wish our own leaders would hold these values close to our hearts and entrench unity and peaceful coexistence," Sultan Mohammed Maccido told the crowd and the warriors.

He mourned "the loss of intolerable numbers of lives, and destruction and loss in property" in Nigeria's religious violence.

Sokoto today is part of 12 predominantly Muslim states that have adopted strict Islamic sharia laws since 2000.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:42 PM
Terrorists are people who use terror for a religious/political purpose manipulation. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. UBL is a terrorists.

Check out the Patriot Act, the Bush administration actually defines what terrorism is. We don't need to play this game. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists now, both morally and now legally speaking.good gawd!

you're citing bush administration policies as support for your position???

someone get me some water, i'm gonna faint!! ROFL


seriously, i undrestand about the legal definition of terrrorist, etc., but since when do i care about such things??

in my mind, abortion clinic bombers are murderers and maybe even terrorists on some low level, some very low level...

now if anti-abortionists were putting car bombs in malls to try to force a stop to abortions, i wouolld call that "terrorism"...

probably no more than semantics... god, did i just use a big word and spell it right too?

i must not be drunk enough... yet... :D

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:42 PM
Fewer cases does equate to fewer dollars spent in deterance. But it doesn't change the nature of the action. Fundamentalism is the common thread in the cause of terrorism. Not the religion.

Christians aren't terrorists by nature. Muslims aren't terrorists by nature. Fundamentalism is the problem.

Sorry jAZ. But as of right now, would you rather have a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim holding a blade over your head?

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:42 PM
see my note above...it was Peter, not Paul. Paul had not had his conversion at that time, he was still going under the name of Saul and was killing Christians if i remember right.

mmaddog
*******
Read back, I had already corrected it.

BTW - What was it with Ananias being such a popular name? The first Ananias mentioned gives Paul/Saul his sight back and then mysteriously dies. The second is a faker of the first and orders Paul's death. The last is a thief who falls dead from the fear of God.

Never name a kid Ananias.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:43 PM
And, jAZ, I sure hope you're not of the opinion that the radical Islamists are targeting only Christians. They want all NON-MUSLIMS dead. That includes a whole lot of people.

I may be being presumptuous, but I assume that means you as well.
More use of fear to distract from the point. I know that all terrorists are targeting someone. Religous fundamentalists are targeting non-believers. I'm a non-believer and a target for many potential terrorists. Whether that's a Christian, a Muslim, or even a militant American.

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:44 PM
Fundamentalism is the problem.

Can we include both sides of extreme fundamentalists in political parties as well? If we are making an ever increasing blanket of bigotry, I would hate to think some here were forgotten.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:48 PM
And, jAZ, I sure hope you're not of the opinion that the radical Islamists are targeting only Christians. They want all NON-MUSLIMS dead. That includes a whole lot of people.

I may be being presumptuous, but I assume that means you as well.it's not just non-muslims that the radical islamists want dead...

they're doing a pretty good job of killing other muslims in pakistan, iraq, jordan, saudi arabia, etc.

and the taliban mostly killed other muslim afghans... (why do i think of a dog when i say that?)

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:48 PM
Sorry jAZ. But as of right now, would you rather have a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim holding a blade over your head?
This isn't about greater threat, it's about finding the source of the problem. The average Christians on this board will fight to their last breath to make the point that fundamentalist wack-job, terrorist Christians aren't real Christians.

I'm making the point that the average Muslim would make the same point - fundamentalist wack-job, terrorist Muslims aren't real Muslims.

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:49 PM
More use of fear to distract from the point. I know that all terrorists are targeting someone. Religous fundamentalists are targeting non-believers. I'm a non-believer and a target for many potential terrorists. Whether that's a Christian, a Muslim, or even a militant American.

Use of fear? Really?

At this point, do you really think it is more likely that some wacko Christian is going to lop off your head than some wacko Muslim? If so, go on over to Iraq and see how many Christians kidnap you and hold you captive under that threat.

Besides, if you really think that religion is the primary motivation behind these idiots' methodology, you're mistaken. They want us out of the ME. That's it.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:49 PM
Read back, I had already corrected it.

BTW - What was it with Ananias being such a popular name? The first Ananias mentioned gives Paul/Saul his sight back and then mysteriously dies. The second is a faker of the first and orders Paul's death. The last is a thief who falls dead from the fear of God.

Never name a kid Ananias.

Sorry...old age has crept in.....

Not sure why Ananias was so popular...just know I wouldn't name my kid Ananias, Jezebel, Judas or Herod...

mmaddog
*******

FringeNC
07-11-2004, 11:50 PM
Fewer cases does equate to fewer dollars spent in deterance. But it doesn't change the nature of the action. Fundamentalism is the common thread in the cause of terrorism. Not the religion.

Christians aren't terrorists by nature. Muslims aren't terrorists by nature. Fundamentalism is the problem.

No, killing people is the problem.

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:52 PM
I'm making the point that the average Muslim would make the same point - fundamentalist wack-job, terrorist Muslims aren't real Muslims.

And, that's my point. They are not. SA is doing their amnesty thing, which is nice. But, until they really step up and declare these animals as what they are, nothing will be resolved. A culture change is needed, quickly and with resolute force.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:53 PM
Fewer cases does equate to fewer dollars spent in deterance. But it doesn't change the nature of the action. Fundamentalism is the common thread in the cause of terrorism. Not the religion.

Christians aren't terrorists by nature. Muslims aren't terrorists by nature. Fundamentalism is the problem.while there may be some similarities between christian fundamentalists and islamic fundamentalists, i don't see those similarities to be as significant as you seem to...

a few murders and a few small scale bombings of clinics by a few fringe loonies doesn't bring christian fundamentalism anywhere near islamic fundamentalism in terms of the scope and ferocity of the violence against innocents...

the anti-abortionists can at least claim that they're "only" targeting abortionists, not "innocent" people in an effort to impose their beliefs...

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:55 PM
Fundamentalist (at least by my use of the term) is one who holds their view to not only be right for them, but also right for everyone. And this view leads to imposing (often by force) your will upon other groups.

Political fundamentalism, religous fundamentalism, ideological fundamentalism.

They are all forms of univeral intollerance and over time, eventually incorporate violence to spread their viewpoint.

Christians aren't excluded from fundamentalism (abortion terrorists). Liberals aren't excluded from fundamentalism (eco-terrorists). Conservatives aren't excluded from fundamentalism (McVeigh-types). Anarchists aren't excluded from fundamentalism (unabomber).

Fundamentalism and the intollerance associated with it, leads to violence in the name of imposing one's will for the good of everyone.

go bowe
07-11-2004, 11:55 PM
Use of fear? Really?

At this point, do you really think it is more likely that some wacko Christian is going to lop off your head than some wacko Muslim? If so, go on over to Iraq and see how many Christians kidnap you and hold you captive under that threat.

Besides, if you really think that religion is the primary motivation behind these idiots' methodology, you're mistaken. They want us out of the ME. That's it.from what i've read and heard, the radical islamic terrorists want more than just getting us out of the middel east...

they want to install taliban-like governments throughout the muslim world and then conquer the rest of the world in the name of their version of allah...

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:56 PM
a few murders and a few small scale bombings of clinics by a few fringe loonies doesn't bring christian fundamentalism anywhere near islamic fundamentalism in terms of the scope and ferocity of the violence against innocents...
Both have identical roots of intollerance. They are just at different points in their evolution.

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:57 PM
Fundamentalist (at least by my use of the term) is one who holds their view to not only be right for them, but also right for everyone. And this view leads to imposing (often by force) your will upon other groups.

Political fundamentalism, religous fundamentalism, ideological fundamentalism.

They are all forms of univeral intollerance and over time, eventually incorporate violence to spread their viewpoint.

Christians aren't excluded from fundamentalism (abortion terrorists). Liberals aren't excluded from fundamentalism (eco-terrorists). Conservatives aren't excluded from fundamentalism (McVeigh-types). Anarchists aren't excluded from fundamentalism (unabomber).

Fundamentalism and the intollerance associated with it, leads to violence in the name of imposing one's will for the good of everyone.

Would you agree that the the frequency of attacks and resultant body count of such fundamentalism distinguishes these groups?

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:58 PM
At this point, do you really think it is more likely that some wacko Christian is going to lop off your head than some wacko Muslim?
We are now officially talking past each other. The fact that there is a greater threat from foreign Islamists today is an entirely seperate issue.

Donger
07-11-2004, 11:58 PM
from what i've read and heard, the radical islamic terrorists want more than just getting us out of the middel east...

they want to install taliban-like governments throughout the muslim world and then conquer the rest of the world in the name of their version of allah...

Yes. But first steps must be taken, after all.

jAZ
07-11-2004, 11:58 PM
Would you agree that the the frequency of attacks and resultant body count of such fundamentalism distinguishes these groups?
Only in their point on the evolutionary scale of fundamentalism.

Mosbonian
07-11-2004, 11:58 PM
Source: The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers:

fundamentalism [ˌfʌndə'mɛntəˌlızəm]
noun
1 (Christianity) (esp. among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true

2 (Islam) a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law

3 strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs


mmaddog
*******

KCWolfman
07-11-2004, 11:59 PM
Both have identical roots of intollerance. They are just at different points in their evolution.
What is that word when you lump everyone together who disagrees with your viewpoint, lifestyle, or skin color in a negative light?

Donger
07-12-2004, 12:00 AM
We are now officially talking past each other.

There's a shock.

Bottom line, jAZ: If you had had to take your chances with a "fundamentalist Christian" or a "fundamentalist Muslim," you'd take take the Christian, wouldn't you?

Mosbonian
07-12-2004, 12:01 AM
It's bedtime for me guys....

Have a great debate....

mmaddog
*******

go bowe
07-12-2004, 12:01 AM
And, that's my point. They are not. SA is doing their amnesty thing, which is nice. But, until they really step up and declare these animals as what they are, nothing will be resolved. A culture change is needed, quickly and with resolute force.a culture change is exactly what's happening in jordan and saudi arabia and to some extent in iran and even egypt, where the governments are finally beginning to realize that they are targets of terrorists just like we have been...

more and more moderate arab governments and moderate muslim clerics have been denouncing terrorists and even in iraq, moderate shiite leaders are calling for action against terrorists who are killing iraqis...

Donger
07-12-2004, 12:01 AM
Only in their point on the evolutionary scale of fundamentalism.

Well, time is a bitch, ain't it?

Donger
07-12-2004, 12:02 AM
a culture change is exactly what's happening in jordan and saudi arabia and to some extent in iran and even egypt, where the governments are finally beginning to realize that they are targets of terrorists just like we have been...

more and more moderate arab governments and moderate muslim clerics have been denouncing terrorists and even in iraq, moderate shiite leaders are calling for action against terrorists who are killing iraqis...

I know those are the reports, and I have some friends in mix that are saying the same. But, I'll believe it when I see it. Trust me, I hope it's true.

go bowe
07-12-2004, 12:03 AM
This isn't about greater threat, it's about finding the source of the problem. The average Christians on this board will fight to their last breath to make the point that fundamentalist wack-job, terrorist Christians aren't real Christians.

I'm making the point that the average Muslim would make the same point - fundamentalist wack-job, terrorist Muslims aren't real Muslims.i would agree with those points...

jAZ
07-12-2004, 12:04 AM
There's a shock.

Bottom line, jAZ: If you had had to take your chances with a "fundamentalist Christian" or a "fundamentalist Muslim," you'd take take the Christian, wouldn't you?
It doesn't matter whether I'm standing in front of an abortion clinic or in front of an Iraqi Gov't building, or in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

In all 3 cases, I'm dead.

jAZ
07-12-2004, 12:05 AM
Same here, night all!

Donger
07-12-2004, 12:06 AM
It doesn't matter whether I'm standing in front of an abortion clinic or in front of an Iraqi Gov't building, or in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

In all 3 cases, I'm dead.

Oh, I don't know about that.

I'd wager that your chances are better of being in a body bag in Iraq than here.

go bowe
07-12-2004, 12:10 AM
Both have identical roots of intollerance. They are just at different points in their evolution.well, i don't accept the notion that the evolution of christian "terrorism" and the evolution of mulim terrorism will be along the same lines at all...

in the case of muslim terrorism, you have societies that are predominantly living in the middle ages and which are ripe for radical islamic fundamentalism...

in the case of "christian terrorists" they are in societies which do not condone violence against anyone, especially for religious reasons....

and where their brand of terrorism will never be in a position to take control of the country and dictate all phases of people's lives to them like the taliban did...

no, i don't see their "evolution" as being the same at all...

tiptap
07-12-2004, 12:13 AM
Use of fear? Really?

At this point, do you really think it is more likely that some wacko Christian is going to lop off your head than some wacko Muslim? If so, go on over to Iraq and see how many Christians kidnap you and hold you captive under that threat.

Besides, if you really think that religion is the primary motivation behind these idiots' methodology, you're mistaken. They want us out of the ME. That's it.

I have been in contact with more Christians day to day so yeah I would say my chances of being harmed are higher from Christian zealots. I did make the mistake one time of admitting to being an atheist to a man who was a preacher and happen to have a machete in his hand at that moment (we were after bananas and I was later threatened by the local communists weeks later so harm may come from any direction).

KCWolfman
07-12-2004, 12:16 AM
I have been in contact with more Christians day to day so yeah I would say my chances of being harmed are higher from Christian zealots. I did make the mistake one time of admitting to being an atheist to a man who was a preacher and happen to have a machete in his hand at that moment (we were after bananas and I was later threatened by the local communists weeks later so harm may come from any direction).
I would venture to say your chances at being killed due to profit or drug related reasons (not you, the offender) are definitely greater in the US than by Christians.

I would not venture to state the same is the case of Muslims in many nations.

manny
07-12-2004, 12:17 AM
Do you want all points addressed in one post?

#1. How would I know? Personal experience, viewpoints of agendist laws both attempted and implemented, family experience, the voice of the left on this board. I think that is sufficient to base an opinion upon

#2. I agree with your protest option. It would speak volumes and actually educate people. I never stated I agreed with the moron, I stated he had the right to give his viewpoint without fear of retribution and incarceration.

#3. Judge not or lest ye be judged. Ahh, the old adage thrown by the extreme left, and ALWAYS screwed up with their horrid interpretation. The statement was made to men preparing to stone a whore who was screwing a married man. The man in question was not charged with any crime and the woman was to suffer death. Jesus Christ made a simple statement regarding the unequal treatment of both offenders and the fact that most of the men who were to throw those stones were guilty of their own whores. It was not an all-encompassing legal statement, it was a point of hypocrisy regarding sex and the sexes. Applying your immature analogy to the issue, no one would ever be convicted of any crime as none of us would ever be worthy of judging them criminals.

#4. I agree. There are a great many Christians who have no trouble with homosexuals who are good Christians. There are also a great many who perceive the act as a sin, that does not mean they take action against the sinner. The man arrested did nothing to any other person.

#1) An opinion, yes, a statement of fact, no.

#2) If homosexuality were a crime, you might have a point, but it's not, though I think the effort is to return it to the category of crime. The difference in the meaning of "judgement" between the Old and New Testaments was the difference between judging law and judging sin. In the New Testament they were one and the same, in JC's teachings they could be very different. That's the point, although I'm not going to argue religious interpretation.

#2) and #4) What if the congregation had rushed out and stoned a gay man to death? Whether we agree he shouldn't be arrested or not, his words were an incitement. I think Talking Can sized them up pretty well elsewhere.

#5) Goodnight.

jAZ
07-12-2004, 08:06 AM
in the case of muslim terrorism, you have societies that are predominantly living in the middle ages and which are ripe for radical islamic fundamentalism...

in the case of "christian terrorists" they are in societies which do not condone violence against anyone, especially for religious reasons....
radical fundamentalism in Islamic countries, even to this day, represents a very small segment of the population. And then it grows upward.

We do have, in this country today, the right ingredients (division of wealth, lack of hope for the future, poverty, etc) to grow fundamentalist violence. It could come from homegrown Christians or from homegrown muslims.

We are also developed enough to manage the process through policing, representative democracy, social policy, etc. But I think our society is being moved towards intollerance, and has been moving that way for the last 10+ years. The further away from the middle (tollerance of differing views) that we slide, the greater the threat of a rise in fundamentalist views.

Our country is built on the notion that we live and let live. As we adopt policy that forces others to live as we do, we are adding to the ingredients needed for violence evolve from fundamentalism.

Mosbonian
07-12-2004, 09:12 AM
#1) An opinion, yes, a statement of fact, no.

#2) If homosexuality were a crime, you might have a point, but it's not, though I think the effort is to return it to the category of crime. The difference in the meaning of "judgement" between the Old and New Testaments was the difference between judging law and judging sin. In the New Testament they were one and the same, in JC's teachings they could be very different. That's the point, although I'm not going to argue religious interpretation.

#2) and #4) What if the congregation had rushed out and stoned a gay man to death? Whether we agree he shouldn't be arrested or not, his words were an incitement. I think Talking Can sized them up pretty well elsewhere.

#5) Goodnight.


#1) And would you say that yours was a statement of fact or an opinion...

#2) Actually, homosexuality IS still a crime in some states, although many prosecutors are loathe to push it. IMO, there are more pressing matters that don't get taken care of in our court system, so adding prosecution of sexual behavior isn't high on my list. BTW, sin was sin, whether in the Old or New Testament.

#2 & #4) That is about as far fetched as believing that Michael Moore would pass up an opportunity at a free buffet. So using your analogy, anyone who makes a speech in public and incites a crowd to civil disobedience should be arrested? Then Lord help this country, because free speech will be stifled.

mmaddog
*******

KCWolfman
07-12-2004, 09:18 AM
#1) An opinion, yes, a statement of fact, no.

#2) If homosexuality were a crime, you might have a point, but it's not, though I think the effort is to return it to the category of crime. The difference in the meaning of "judgement" between the Old and New Testaments was the difference between judging law and judging sin. In the New Testament they were one and the same, in JC's teachings they could be very different. That's the point, although I'm not going to argue religious interpretation.

#2) and #4) What if the congregation had rushed out and stoned a gay man to death? Whether we agree he shouldn't be arrested or not, his words were an incitement. I think Talking Can sized them up pretty well elsewhere.

#5) Goodnight.
#1. I never stated it as fact.

#2. You are wrong. There is an inherit right in this nation to speak freely without the fear of retribution. It is a shame the same right is not given over the rest of the "free" world. Just because you don't like the message does not mean it cannot be spoken.

Last point - You are neurotic and borderline psychotic if you believe that statement. Have you even read his words? Did he state "we must go out and kill the homosexuals"? Hello Mr. Censorship, are you changing your name now that the politically correct leftists have picked you up and employed your tactics?

manny
07-12-2004, 09:41 AM
#1. I never stated it as fact.

#2. You are wrong. There is an inherit right in this nation to speak freely without the fear of retribution. It is a shame the same right is not given over the rest of the "free" world. Just because you don't like the message does not mean it cannot be spoken.

Last point - You are neurotic and borderline psychotic if you believe that statement. Have you even read his words? Did he state "we must go out and kill the homosexuals"? Hello Mr. Censorship, are you changing your name now that the politically correct leftists have picked you up and employed your tactics?

Everything I've said is that I wouldn't censor him, and don't support the actions taken against him. I think they're wrong, and more importantly, counterproductive.Do you get that, or not? On the other hand you seem to have no clue that rhetoric often leads to action, just as the scapegoating of Jews started with loaded rhetoric and moved over into violence. Denounce violence against gays with the same passion that you've denounced this arrest and your chest-thumping performance here will be more than a right-wing political circle-jerk.

Hel'n
07-12-2004, 09:13 PM
While it is faulty logic the statement I believe is based on a real life experience coupled with fear as an emotion and is therefore real and must be accepted for itself, logic be damned.

That is true. I have been assaulted by so-called "Christians" simply by going for a walk in the park... If I hadn't had my cellphone and dialed 911 I think these wonderful young men would have beat the crap out of me...

KCWolfman
07-12-2004, 09:42 PM
That is true. I have been assaulted by so-called "Christians" simply by going for a walk in the park... If I hadn't had my cellphone and dialed 911 I think these wonderful young men would have beat the crap out of me...
I have been threatened by lesbians in a bar with my sister. "Breeders" evidently weren't allowed. The extremists you mention are not currently supported by any legitimate Church in the US. Merely because they assign a religious title to themselves does not mean their actions are accepted or condoned by those religions. No more than the lesbians who threatened me were sanctioned by their local gay community.

Hel'n
07-12-2004, 10:24 PM
I have been threatened by lesbians in a bar with my sister. "Breeders" evidently weren't allowed. The extremists you mention are not currently supported by any legitimate Church in the US. Merely because they assign a religious title to themselves does not mean their actions are accepted or condoned by those religions. No more than the lesbians who threatened me were sanctioned by their local gay community.

Threatened is NOT the same as ASSAULTED.

Do I NEED to spell it out for you?

Or in Christian school when the jocks in PE, including the preacher's son, sodomized me in the boys showers because my body developed as a girl's body because I was intersexed?

Afterall these were good Christians... and nothing was done to them, as the coach watched...

Gawd, how blunt do I have to be with you?!

It has occurred more than once in my life at the hands of supposedly "good Christians."

No one from my church/school apologized. No one in authority did anything... because I was the FREAK...

Now do you get it?! You really have no idea what my life has been like or what I have experienced. You spout rhetoric. I spout experiences.

:mad:

KCWolfman
07-13-2004, 06:14 AM
Threatened is NOT the same as ASSAULTED.

Do I NEED to spell it out for you?


Uh, yes, assault is the THREAT of physical violence. Battery is the the physical action.

Evidently the spelling lesson is required - let's just hope you aren't the teacher.

The rest of your post is fluff and the usual "poor poor pitiful me" crap you have laden over the last several months. While I sympathize with your plight and feel nothing but disgust for those who legally BATTERED you, as usual it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand and is merely done to detract from the fact that you are wrong again.

memyselfI
11-05-2004, 11:27 AM
Straight from the mouth of James Dobson on t.v..

Refering to the constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage. He then likened it to D-Day and Stalingrad.


I find it troubling to see the language of war transplanted to civil issues during a time of real war and real death. The idea that the most pressing issue facing this country (or even one of the top 100 issues) is the question of gay marriage is bizarre and out of all proportion, imho.

We had similiar rhetoric from the minister in Sweden who claimed homosexuals were a "cancer" that would "obliterate" Sweden.

Following this rhetoric, and assuming they mean what they say, does that makes their parishoners (sp?) "soldiers"?

And do those who don't fear/hate/feel threatened by homosexuals have to "take up arms" against them since they are "waging a war"?

Does anyone else find this militant language coming from fundamentalist Christians just a bit nerve wracking given that we're fighting militant fundamentalists abroad?

I'm NOT saying that they're the same, but people have to be held accountable for the language they use and this language is unmistakeable.

Are these Christians at war with their country? And if Bush is re-elected will the war escalate?

Should I start playing those Tom Clancy video games to prepare for what seems to be the eagerly awaited arrival of Armegeddon?

We've got so many wars right now, do you think they would reschedule this one till 2006?

And finally, will they abide by the Geneva Conventions?


Ah, James Dobson...

I missed this thread the first time and seeing this after finding that article I found earlier is an interesting coincidence. :hmmm:

Lightning Rod
11-05-2004, 11:32 AM
I just want to say that I have nothing else to say on this subject.

There I said it.

KCTitus
11-05-2004, 11:34 AM
Should I start playing those Tom Clancy video games to prepare for what seems to be the eagerly awaited arrival of Armegeddon?

You do realize that prior to the actual event of Armageddon, the Christians are the ones victimized like the Jews in Hitler's Germany.

I doubt this was pointed out in the previous pages...

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 11:40 AM
You do realize that prior to the actual event of Armageddon, the Christians are the ones victimized like the Jews in Hitler's Germany.

I doubt this was pointed out in the previous pages...

Then we're safe.

KCTitus
11-05-2004, 11:42 AM
Then we're safe.

Well, until Armageddon...sorry, I dont joke about this.

MadProphetMargin
11-05-2004, 11:46 AM
Well, until Armageddon...sorry, I dont joke about this.

Neither do I, and I don't even believe in Armageddon.

What I *DO* believe is that a fair number of policy makers believe in Armageddon...and run the country accordingly.

An (old) example would be James Watt.

"There is no need to conserve our natural resources, because the rapture is at hand."
- James Watt, Secretary of the Interior for Ronald Reagan (who has, apparently, never read Revelation 11:18).

Now, of course, we have Bush, who SEEMS to be trying to START the damned thing (apparently, he doesn't want to wait for God), along with Ashcroft, who basically salivates over the prospect.

KCTitus
11-05-2004, 11:53 AM
Neither do I, and I don't even believe in Armageddon.

What I *DO* believe is that a fair number of policy makers believe in Armageddon...and run the country accordingly.

Post #170 would say otherwise. That's ok, Im dropping this, I never should have brought it up...

One thing Ive allways found interesting is those that 'dont' believe typically go out of their way to a) ridicule or joke about those that do and b)go out of their way to do it for something they dont believe in.

I understand why.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:35 PM
It's being used exactly like the issue of abortion is used. As a issue that cements the religious base against abandoning a party that doesn't represent most of their interests. Neither should be a top priority. But both are made out to be for political gain.
Ah, the miracle of GOP spin. They are quite good at it.

Brock
11-05-2004, 12:37 PM
Ah, the miracle of GOP spin. They are quite good at it.

You guys really are in Hell, aren't you? ROFL ROFL I love it!

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:37 PM
You do realize that prior to the actual event of Armageddon, the Christians are the ones victimized like the Jews in Hitler's Germany.

I doubt this was pointed out in the previous pages...
wtf r u talking about? is this a personal future prediction or are u paraphrasing the Biblical book of Revelation?

ChiefsCountry
11-05-2004, 12:39 PM
Ah, the miracle of GOP spin. They are quite good at it.

Why are you so ticked off by the war in Iraq? We helped free a freaking country from a horrible dictator who has been a pain in our a$$. And I don't want to hear anything about oil cause we havent seen one drop of it.

BushGaveMeApplePie
11-05-2004, 12:39 PM
You guys really are in Hell, aren't you? ROFL ROFL I love it!
the funny thing is that we're all in "hell" as you call it, but the majority of fundies have been duped into thinking it's "heaven".

for that reason, I can't wait to see what 4 more years will bring.

NewChief
11-05-2004, 12:56 PM
wtf r u talking about? is this a personal future prediction or are u paraphrasing the Biblical book of Revelation?

Read the Left Behind series. It's the blueprint for our current foreign policy.

Brock
11-05-2004, 12:57 PM
the funny thing is that we're all in "hell" as you call it, but the majority of fundies have been duped into thinking it's "heaven".

for that reason, I can't wait to see what 4 more years will bring.

Sucks to be you.

memyselfI
11-05-2004, 02:00 PM
Read the Left Behind series. It's the blueprint for our current foreign policy.


That doesn't scare me as much as the number of people who are ok with it does...