Dead soldiers, happy christians

[shesulsa]

I think the generalization factor is indeed the key, here, but I think it's lent more to the idea of the "left" not so much "Christians" according to Hannity. It's a specific group of Christians that Hannity is lending to the general "left".

 

[Cryozombie]

I think the generalization factor is indeed the key, here, but I think it's lent more to the idea of the "left" not so much "Christians" according to Hannity. It's a specific group of Christians that Hannity is lending to the general "left".

I know I know.

Im just trying to respond in a manner that is inappropriatly expected of my faith. i.e. going on the attack. (cuz we are all closeminded hatemongers)

Ill stop. Sorry Marginal.

Although it could be worse. This criticism COULD have inspired me to burn down an embassy someplace.

 

[Phoenix44]

I'll tell you what infuriates me: the idea that when anyone says anything about an individual or group that invokes religion to propagate hate (or just plain stupidity), then that automatically means you "hate their religion."

For example, if I say, "Pat Robertson is an idiot," that DOES NOT MEAN that I hate Christians or Christianity. It means I think "Pat Robertson is an idiot." Period. And to imply that I hate Christians because I think Pat Roberson is an idiot is hate-mongering in itself.

There is a religious right, and a religious left (ever hear of Pax Christi? Faith Voices for the Common Good?)

In my opinion, there are two problems with radical religion (any religion) in this country:

1. The insistence that "Because I believe this way, so must everyone else."

2. The injection of religion into government, for example, "The United States is a Christian nation (or Islamic caliphate, take your pick), and therefore the laws must reflect my religious belief."

And that doesn't mean that I hate anybody's religion.

I also think it's equally abhorrent to say that people who are against the war in Iraq hate our soldiers, or fail to "support our troops." Thats a disgusting inference.

 

[shesulsa]

I'll tell you what infuriates me: the idea that when anyone says anything about an individual or group that invokes religion to propagate hate (or just plain stupidity), then that automatically means you "hate their religion."

For example, if I say, "Pat Robertson is an idiot," that DOES NOT MEAN that I hate Christians or Christianity. It means I think "Pat Robertson is an idiot." Period. And to imply that I hate Christians because I think Pat Roberson is an idiot is hate-mongering in itself.

There is a religious right, and a religious left (ever hear of Pax Christi? Faith Voices for the Common Good?)

In my opinion, there are two problems with radical religion (any religion) in this country:

1. The insistence that "Because I believe this way, so must everyone else."

2. The injection of religion into government, for example, "The United States is a Christian nation (or Islamic caliphate, take your pick), and therefore the laws must reflect my religious belief."

And that doesn't mean that I hate anybody's religion.

I also think it's equally abhorrent to say that people who are against the war in Iraq hate our soldiers, or fail to "support our troops." Thats a disgusting inference.

I couldn't agree more.

And, thus, I wonder what brings people to the mentality of automatic grouping? Flatlander and Technopunk gave excellent examples but to delve a bit deeper, isn't it all about (*warning - generalization ahead*) a basic human need to 'belong'? I've seen studies on bullying where individuals who are less than violent or non-violent will side with the bully just because of the sense of upper hand and the desire to not be victimized. This indicates fear. Bullys are afraid of losing superiority, no? and others are afraid of looking dumb and being bullied, no? Hence the sheeple mentality?

 

[Cryozombie]

In my opinion, there are two problems with radical religion (any religion) in this country:

1. The insistence that "Because I believe this way, so must everyone else."

2. The injection of religion into government, for example, "The United States is a Christian nation (or Islamic caliphate, take your pick), and therefore the laws must reflect my religious belief."

I do find it interesting that, despite RIOTS and killings over a cartoon by a radical group whos beliefs are "YOU MUST BELIEVE LIKE US INFIDELS!" and believe that religion IS injected into and controlling our government (aka the belief that we are puppets to the Jews) you still choose to say its a problem IN THIS COUNTRY.

Hmmm. I challenge that its a worldwide issue. But I agree, those kinds of radicals piss me off too.

Phoenix, while I understand your opening statement, I have to counter with the fact that there are certain members of this board who come across in MULTIPLE posts as... well, ok, I wont use the word HATING christains, but at the very least having a problem with them... true or not, its a perception thing, because they are always on the offensive on the topic.

Again, If I say that TaeKwondo is useless enough times, regardless of my ACTUAL beliefs, Tae Kwon do people will start thinking I have an issue with TaeKwondo, no?

 

[Marginal]

So if I say "Tae Kwon do People cant fight thier way out of a paper bag" its ok, because as a generalization I mean A SPECIFIC group of TKD people and not all TKD people?


​

Yep. As generlizations go, most TKDists on MT tend to agree with such a generialization, or at least few bother to dispute it. (Odd since few TKDists would fit into a paper bag in the first place.) They do not however, tend to automatically lump themselves in with that particular group.

That aside, it is possible for a Christian to be critical of the activities of other Christians without becoming a nonchristian in the process. Something to consider. It's not so much a hate issue as it is an issue of "Why do those kinds insist on ruining it for the rest of us?" This is what fundimentalists do. Therefore, I criticise them.

 

[Phoenix44]

I do find it interesting that, despite RIOTS and killings over a cartoon by a radical group whos beliefs are "YOU MUST BELIEVE LIKE US INFIDELS!" and believe that religion IS injected into and controlling our government (aka the belief that we are puppets to the Jews) you still choose to say its a problem IN THIS COUNTRY.

Hmmm. I challenge that its a worldwide issue.

Philisophically, yes. I think it's tragic that people express their anger over a cartoon by commiting violence. But Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, for instance, don't pretend to have religious freedom. Religious intolerance ISN'T a PROBLEM there--it's their way of life. They are Islamic republics, and they don't tolerate other religions. But THIS COUNTRY, the United States of America, was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and I for one am proud of that. Religious intolerance here makes me want to cry.

 

[Rich Parsons54]

Phoenix, while I understand your opening statement, I have to counter with the fact that there are certain members of this board who come across in MULTIPLE posts as... well, ok, I wont use the word HATING christains, but at the very least having a problem with them... true or not, its a perception thing, because they are always on the offensive on the topic.

Again, If I say that TaeKwondo is useless enough times, regardless of my ACTUAL beliefs, Tae Kwon do people will start thinking I have an issue with TaeKwondo, no?

Techno et al,

I would have to agree. I have issue with certain things in culture. I have my points of view, and opinions. Yet, I try to allow that others have their points and opinions as well. One can raise and issue, argue a point, and also express an opinion, and allow for the other side of the arguement, has a point, yet it is not your view.

Some people thought I was anti-Christian when I argued for the removal of "In God We Trust" from our money. I expressed my opinions, and why and listed history to show when things occurred.

I agree if you say that Republicans suck enough times, people will think that you do not like Republicans.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You mean the benevolent preacher, or Hannity?

I don't care about Seanbaby, but that religious groups is saying and doing disgusting things that should be widely condemned by sane American. The US doesn't neet rot like this dragging our society into the sewer along with them.

Well, as for the idea that the leader of this 'religious group' should be condemned, it's a lot like condemning Charles Manson....it's kind of irrelavent. The guys and idiot, and I would think it should go without saying. So who should be doing the condemning? You just condemned him, i've just condemned him, so it's clear that he's being thoroughly condemned. He's a moron. Happy?

As for a previous suggestion by someone that it is the two-party system that somehow creates this situation, that seems to not be the case. Rather, the two party system is a reflection of a much larger dichotomy in human political thinking. Left and Right wing thinking, in various forms and called various things, tends to be very widely distributed outside of our two party system. In fact, historically, many political and philosophical ideas have been diametric opposites, and have formed opposing sides of the political perspective. Take the Stoics and the Epicureans, for example. Those basic dichotomies of human political desires merely manifest themselves in new forms of old ideals as history marches on.

Dividing up the two-party system in to more parties would merely serve to divide up the individual interests even more. Would it solve the problem? That's highly doubtful.

 

[Cryozombie]

Religious intolerance here makes me want to cry.

Me too. I am handed it by worshippers of "Science" as much as I am Fundies in my own religion, however. It irks me to no end when people cant recognize THAT type of action as Religious intolerance also. Because of that, I know when I am defending my religious position I CAN come across that way as well, but honestly I am just as critical of my fellow christians. FWIW, I had some words with some just 2 days ago who were spinning the whole "Hot Coffee" issue in the GTA videogame to make it a moral issue of Rockstar Games intentionally adding sex to expose our children to it... and I took them to task on that as well. (Both their misinformation and the spin that was being used to try and "trick" other christians into outrage)

 

[sgtmac_46]

That aside, it is possible for a Christian to be critical of the activities of other Christians without becoming a nonchristian in the process. Something to consider. It's not so much a hate issue as it is an issue of "Why do those kinds insist on ruining it for the rest of us?" This is what fundimentalists do. Therefore, I criticise them.

You've made a BIG assumption in the idea that a christian should automatically identify himself with every nutcase who decides to start a church. The fact is that, unlike Islam, which obviously, dispite divisions and infighting, responds pretty uniformly when attacked from without, christianity is extremely diverse.

So, exactly what Christians should apologize for some fruitcake who starts a church and protests the funerals of soldiers. It is presumed that many of the people they are protesting are christians as well. Should they be apologizing? I mean, exactly what criterian are you using to paint this extremely broad brush? Do the mormons have to apologize? The Jehovah's witnesses? Catholics? Eastern Orthodox? Baptists? 7th Day Adventists? Lutherans? Who's supposed to be 'apologizing' or condemning? I'm a bit confused?

In fact, i'd be surprised if quite a few 'christians' around these funerals didn't want to kick the collective butts of these 'interloper' protesters.

 

[Marginal]

You've made a BIG assumption in the idea that a christian should automatically identify himself with every nutcase who decides to start a church.

Every Christian should not want to draw such associations by implicitly supporting the actions by not saying anything about them.

So, exactly what Christians should apologize for some fruitcake who starts a church and protests the funerals of soldiers. It is presumed that many of the people they are protesting are christians as well.

Easy enough to make. They claim to be comprised of 76 members, and they are unified by their literal reading of the Bible. Without that, the hatred of gays makes absolutely no sense.

It's not any different from claiming Osama represents some establised form of Islam really. (He doesn't)

Should they be apologizing? I mean, exactly what criterian are you using to paint this extremely broad brush? Do the mormons have to apologize?

Do most mormons want to be thought of as the kooky guys who have 85 wives?

[/quote]In fact, i'd be surprised if quite a few 'christians' around these funerals didn't want to kick the collective butts of these 'interloper' protesters.[/quote]

As I said, I'm surprised there hasnt' been some chainsawin' going down.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Every Christian should not want to draw such associations by implicitly supporting the actions by not saying anything about them.

So by not saying something about some fruitcake self-appointed preacher, who most of them have never even heard of, they are 'supporting him'? hehe.

Easy enough to make. They claim to be comprised of 76 members, and they are unified by their literal reading of the Bible. Without that, the hatred of gays makes absolutely no sense.

76 WHOLE members?

It's not any different from claiming Osama represents some establised form of Islam really. (He doesn't)

There is one significant difference. This moron has 76 followers. A significant minority of the Islamic world things Osama is the best thing since goat cheese. Don't think so? Conduct a poll of people who have even know this moronic preachers name, and an identical poll of the Islamic world who support the efforts of bin Laden. I think you might find a bit of a difference.

Do most mormons want to be thought of as the kooky guys who have 85 wives?

Could explain what that has to do for 'apologizing' for some fruitcake that has a church with 76 members?

As I said, I'm surprised there hasnt' been some chainsawin' going down.

Likely, they figure him for the kook he is. 'Apologizing' for him would give him more publicity and credibility than his 76 members and he deserve.

 

[heretic888]

As for a previous suggestion by someone that it is the two-party system that somehow creates this situation, that seems to not be the case. Rather, the two party system is a reflection of a much larger dichotomy in human political thinking. Left and Right wing thinking, in various forms and called various things, tends to be very widely distributed outside of our two party system. In fact, historically, many political and philosophical ideas have been diametric opposites, and have formed opposing sides of the political perspective. Take the Stoics and the Epicureans, for example. Those basic dichotomies of human political desires merely manifest themselves in new forms of old ideals as history marches on.

The problem with this theory, unfortunately, is that what we would identify as 'the Left' (beginning perhaps with French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau) did not exist before the Western 'Age of Reason'.

This makes liberal philosophy extremely contingent upon predefined historical and cultural contexts. Conservative philosophy is also, of course, you just have to go back further in history.

Laterz.

 

[Marginal]

So by not saying something about some fruitcake self-appointed preacher, who most of them have never even heard of, they are 'supporting him'? hehe.

Seems par for the course.

76 WHOLE members?

Vs half members?

There is one significant difference. This moron has 76 followers.

There are plenty of conservative Christian fundimentalists who beleive much the same stuff. Therefore, there are thousands upon thousands and they're all directly linked.

A significant minority of the Islamic world things Osama is the best thing since goat cheese. Don't think so? Conduct a poll of people who have even know this moronic preachers name, and an identical poll of the Islamic world who support the efforts of bin Laden. I think you might find a bit of a difference.

Yes, all people who support Bin Laden are people who follow Bin Laden.

Could explain what that has to do for 'apologizing' for some fruitcake that has a church with 76 members?

Could you explain where you yanked this thought from? It wasn't this thread, my head, or yours. Had to be someplace smelly.

Likely, they figure him for the kook he is. 'Apologizing' for him would give him more publicity and credibility than his 76 members and he deserve.

Man, you really nailed that strawman.

 

[Phoenix44]

The problem is that when an idiot publicly identifies him/herself as representing a particular religion while doing something idiotic, s/he can't help but spray dirt all over the perfectly decent people who happen to share that religion, but not the idiocy. Especially when the audience is not particularly knowledgeable.

I'll give you an example. The community next to mine has a large population of very orthodox Jews. They do not drive on Saturdays, shabbat. On Saturday, some groups of people on their way to synagogue walk in the middle of the street blocking traffic, as if to imply that because THEY don't drive on Saturday, neither should you. And of course, they wear their yarmulkes, publicly identifying themselves as Jews. So I'm annoyed, thinking, well, I'm a Jew, and this behavior reflects badly on ME.

Now in reality, their behavior has nothing to do with me. In fact, it has nothing to do with being a Jew either, a fact that most people would realize. So if someone were to say, "Geez, those people in the middle of the street are incredibly inconsiderate," it doesn't mean they hate Jews.

People like Pat Robertson takes things to a different level, however. He actually claims to know what God's motives are, so when he says something stupid, he actually claims to represent Christians. Same is true for those who carry placards "God hates fags." (To continue my analogy, it's as if to say, "Jews are supposed to block traffic on Saturdays.") In my mind, they truly insult the image of decent Christians--but the more enlightened among us would not make that generalization.

The fact is, I also wish that more decent, publicly identified Muslims would denounce Bin Laden and terrorism--and many do. I also wish more decent, publicly identified Christians would denounce the nutballs and bigots who claim to represent Christianity. And many Christians do denounce them.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem with this theory, unfortunately, is that what we would identify as 'the Left' (beginning perhaps with French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau) did not exist before the Western 'Age of Reason'.

This makes liberal philosophy extremely contingent upon predefined historical and cultural contexts. Conservative philosophy is also, of course, you just have to go back further in history.

Laterz.

A bit of hair splitting. The reality is that arch-types of human political thinking existed long before being called left wing and right wing. The greeks themselves had political philosophies that incorperate many of the ideas we identify as left wing and right wing today.

Of course, literally speaking, 'Leftists' weren't so called until the French revolution.

What you fail to realize, however, is that left/right are really built on individual human desires, and some humans tend to naturally lean one way or another.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Seems par for the course.

Whatever that means.

Vs half members?

Very clever. Did that take you all do to come up with?

There are plenty of conservative Christian fundimentalists who beleive much the same stuff. Therefore, there are thousands upon thousands and they're all directly linked.

They believe they should picket dead soldier's funerals?

Yes, all people who support Bin Laden are people who follow Bin Laden.

A follower is someone who takes the directions of the leader. A supporter is someone who passively supports and cheers the actions of someone like bin Laden. A big difference. The difference is actions versus sympathies.

Could you explain where you yanked this thought from? It wasn't this thread, my head, or yours. Had to be someplace smelly.

Seems as though you have a desire to attack a large number of people, for the actions of the mentally ill. You paint with a pretty large brush. What you paint with, likewise, comes from a pretty smelly place.

Man, you really nailed that strawman.

I appreciate that. When it comes to expertise on nailing strawman, there is no one I know who's got that down better than you. So, when you say I nailed one, i'm getting a compliment from the best.

 

[Lisa]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-LISA DENEKA
-MT Moderator-

 

[heretic888]

What you fail to realize, however, is that left/right are really built on individual human desires, and some humans tend to naturally lean one way or another.

No, what I have succeeded to realize is one of the cardinal principles of psychology: you don't psychoanalyze personal values and political beliefs.

For all your appeals to supposedly universal "impulses" or "desires" here, the simple fact of the matter is you don't know where these political beliefs actually "come from". They may indeed be based in genetically inherited predispositions that we "naturally lean" towards, as you may say. Or, they be largely constructions of our social systems. Or, perhaps, they are some interactionist combination of the two.

However, as it stands now, there is no research to my knowledge that has actually examined such phenomena in an in-depth fashion. All you're doing is engaging in fanciful speculation based on non-scientific a priori assumptions about "human nature".

Laterz.