Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

When it comes to genocide no group has ever been more successful at it than Christianity.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

Perhaps you are aware of an earlier use?

---

My understanding is that it dates back to at least Marx referring to the political positions of the establishment.But at any rate, the meaning is clear: The staking out of a position for the political cachet it gives regardless of the actual belief or concurrence with that position. Your reference says as much. It is what allows conservatives to vote against their own interests such as those who are now seeing that Trump really is trying to take away their health insurance, that the tax system in Kansas is actually destroying the state, etc. Because to do otherwise would mean they are "liberal" and it would be politically incorrect to be "liberal."In current usage by conservatives, it is usually a signal that the person is about to or has just said something they know to be stupid and cruel and are upset that they are getting called out on it. For example, it used to be OK to use racial slurs in "polite company." Now, it is somehow "politically correct" to refrain from doing so. It is based upon the idea that we all really want to "say the truth" but are somehow "stifled" due to the blowback for saying such things. It is used to suggest that those who would find such things bigoted are hypocrites...that they know that such disparagement is "true" and cannot handle the political fallout of being seen as bigoted.It never occurs to them that that position is the "politically correct" viewpoint. It is a prime example of the irony of the modern conservative viewpoint: To fight against bigotry is to engage in bigotry against bigots. To fight oppression is to oppress the oppressors. To denounce unfairness is to be unfair to those who deny equality. We see this, for example, in the complaints of those who seek to deny marriage equality. They insist that somehow they are being denied their right to treat gay couples as less than...as if they ever had that right in the first place.Now, indeed, they were able to disparage gay couples and not get any blowback from society at large. The laws did allow for disparate treatment based upon sexual orientation. But, the law has changed and now those actions are no longer allowed, both legally as well as societally. The same people who insist that being unable to deny services to gay couples is "oppression" would seemingly blanch at the idea of denying those same services to racial minorities.The "political correctness" is clear: They don't like being thought of as racist and thus they cannot accept racist behaviour. But, they don't mind being thought of as homophobic and somehow feel themselves put upon for not being allowed to express such bigotry openly with no consequences. They don't actually understand the position of anti-bigotry. The political consequences of being seen as racist are more dire than of being seen as homophobic. Thus, they decry the "political correctness" of not being able to make gay people's lives miserable while not understanding this means their disdain of racism is just as "politically correct."The escape, of course, is to understand that the two go together. To discriminate against people is bad. The attempt to seek out a justification for treating people poorly is the problem. We don't use slurs on the basis of race or sex or sexual orientation or religion or national origin etc. out of some sense of political fear but because we understand that it is morally wrong to do so. We wouldn't want it done to us, so we don't get to do it to others. We don't treat others poorly because it is wrong to do so. We wouldn't want it done to us, so we don't get to do it to others.The idea that "political correctness" is a lefty attempt at suppressing conservative thought is nothing but a massively ironic use of political correctness by the right. Conservatives seem to have a desperate need for the "safe space" they so deride in those they see as "liberal." They want to be allowed to express their views without comment and treat others as they see fit without consequences.The irony is astounding.

"Political Correctness" has a well-established application, referring to Leftist/Marxist/Communist ideology, which is formulaic, canned, pedantic, and used to intimidate. Citizens of countries where Communism took over experienced what it means as they had no freedom to speak without worrying about who was listening and what consequences they might have to endure from the state if they happened to say something that could be construed to be against the state or Communist doctrine.That was the original context. Then when it moved to America it took on the content of Cultural Marxism that took off particularly in the sixties in the universities. As I personally remember it, it started as a formulaic attack on America as "imperialist," and then came the accusations of sexism, homophobia, racism and so on. That's where it all started and it always has the same aim and effect: to shut people up who don't agree with the Marxist agenda. Say the wrong thing and you'll be scowled down and upbraided for your "insensitivity." Happens every day at EvC, happens every day wherever a leftist encounters a conservative opinion. It is what is operating right now in all the anti-Trump stuff, and operating now to keep Europeans from even mentioning the problems they are having with their burgeoning Muslim population for fear of being branded "racist" and losing job, reputation etc.The classic article on the subject can be found on the web, written by William Lind.There is nothing similar in conservatism. That's all your own invention.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

Not a lie.

---

Very much so a lie. You are engaging in the logical error of a double standard.

quote:

---

109 verses in the Koran calling for fighting and killing for Allah

---

And even more so in the Bible.Deuteronomy 17: There are 90 admonitions to kill in Deuteronomy alone. God routinely orders people to kill those who don't believe."But that's the Old Testament!" I hear you cry. The hypocrisy in that statement alone disqualifies it, but let's not pretend that the New Testament doesn't also call for the death of apostates:Galatians: And Luke: If you are going to claim that "Islam itself is ideologically terrorist," then you are going to have to claim that Christianity is profoundly more so.The mere threat of condemning someone to hell simply for not believing is, in and of itself, terrorism. Your god is ideologically a terrorist, Faith.

quote:

---

iif jihadist actions all over the world today don't convince you.

---

And the Christian jihad doesn't count why? We called it the "Crusades" for a reason.I think the Native Americans will have something to say about Christian methods of "converting" people to Christianity.The Inquisition really did happen.The Irish "Troubles" really did happen.And at the risk of Godwinning out: The Holocaust really did happen. And carried out by Christians.Thus, you show your double standard.And thus, your claim is a lie. In order for it to be true, then you necessarily claim that the 2 billion Muslims in the world are all terrorists based upon your interpretation of verses you have never read (let's be honest, Faith...you haven't read the Koran. I have.) But somehow, those very same admonitions to kill apostates that are found in Christianity don't automatically condemn the 2 billion Christians in the world as being terrorists.Because...?Oh, that's right. Because *you're* a Christian and it would violate your political correctness to consider the terrorist activities that you support. Because only brown people are terrorists.Textbook political correctness.

None in the Bible. Shown over and over and over here . Bible descriptions of violence do not address readers. Koran advocates violent action by the reader.The Inquisition was CATHOLIC and it KILLED PREDOMINANTLY BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS.I guess you just don't read much around here do you?:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Roman Catholics ARE Christians Faith and the Inquisitions and pogroms went on for long, long periods of times while Christians killed Christians and anyone who was not a Christian. Oh, and also confiscated their wealth and property and also drove them out of the country.Nobody does genocide as well and effectively as Christians.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

Political Correctness" has a well-established application, referring to Leftist/Marxist/Communist ideology, which is formulaic, canned, pedantic, and used to intimidate.

---

So when conservatives do it, it doesn't count? When they carry out their formulaic, canned, pedantic actions used to intimidate others, it doesn't count? Citizens of countries where Fascism took over experienced what it means as they had no freedom to speak without worry about who was listening and what consequences they might have to endure from the state if they happened to say something that could be construed to be against the state or Fascist doctrine.That was always the context. The use of "political correctness" by the right has always been a smokescreen to distract from their own political correctness. It's why people such as yourself complain about "cultural Marxism" as if that were a real thing. It's why people such as yourself cannot handle the fact that the mission of universities is to challenge your way of thinking so that you can understand why you think the way that you do. Instead, you seek them to become politically correct and refuse to allow any questioning of the formulaic, canned, pedantic dogma coming out of conservative spokespeople.My god, Faith, you just admitted here that you don't know what to think about the Muslim ban until a conservative tells you what to think.Look at your reaction here: In response to your actions being accurately described as racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on, your response is to declare all such discussion to be "politically correct" rather than to engage in actual debate.And it is for the precise effect that you are decrying: To shut people up who don't agree with your fascist agenda. Say the wrong thing to you and you scowl and upbraid us for our "sensitivity." Happens every time you post, happens every time whenever you encounter a liberal opinion. It's what is operating right now to keep you from even mentioning the problems that Europe actually has with terrorism. Hint: It's right-wing terrorism that is the largest source of terrorism in Europe...but what would Interpol know about terrorism, right? They're a bunch of Socialists, right? But no, they can't talk about it for fear of being branded "politically correct" and forced to resign.Modern conservatism is nothing but an exercise in political correctness.Take DOMA, for example. To hear conservatives tell the story, this was something that was carried out by Democrats. But that conveniently ignores the actual voting.Indeed, DOMA would not have passed if the Democrats had all voted against it. And indeed, it was signed by a Democratic President.But who voted against it? Out of all the Republicans in Congress, how many voted against it?That's right: One.Steven Gunderson of Wisconsin.The gay one.So yes, the majority of Democrats voted for it...but only Democrats voted against it.Take a look at the ACA.Not a single Republican voted for it.Even though it is the Heritage Foundation's plan from when the Republicans suggested it in the 90s and that Romney implemented in Massachusetts to good effect (such that he campaigned on it).But because Democrats were now supporting it, it was the devil incarnate. To the point that they lied about it ("death panels"? "rationing"?)Modern conservatism is nothing but political correctness. There is nothing similar on liberalism. It is all a conservative invention.

But they were doing gods work obviously. [/sarcasm]

The PC is thick on this very thread, aimed against me, who else?

As long as you call Catholicism Christian (and I'm not talking about individual Catholics, I'm talking about CatholiCISM which is political and comes down from the Vatican) you will give a false view of history. As I said, BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS were the MAIN victims of the Inquisition. Pogroms were also a mainly Catholic enterprise against the Jews. You really know nothing about history.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

None in the Bible.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Did you bother to read my post, Faith? Here it is again, since you ignored it the first time.Deuteronomy 17: There are 90 admonitions to kill in Deuteronomy alone. God routinely orders people to kill those who don't believe."But that's the Old Testament!" I hear you cry. The hypocrisy in that statement alone disqualifies it, but let's not pretend that the New Testament doesn't also call for the death of apostates:Galatians: And Luke: Are you saying those passages don't exist in the Bible?Is lying for Jesus not a sin? And since that last passage is supposed to be something that Jesus said, is lying about Jesus for Jesus not a sin?

quote:

---

Bible descriptions of violence do not address readers.

---

So when Deuteronomy 17 says that those people are to be put to death, it doesn't mean they're supposed to die? That's strange because it directly tells who is supposed to carry out the killing: The Bible directly orders people to kill.Simply for not believing in the Bible's god.It's like you've never actually read the Bible, Faith. It's like you let someone else tell you what it says.How Catholic of you...pre-Vatican II, of course.

quote:

---

The Inquisition was CATHOLIC

---

And Catholics are Christian.Of course, since Martin Luther wouldn't be born until a couple centuries after the Crusades, it's not surprising that you don't find many Protestants involved.It hadn't been invented yet.It's like you don't know anything about your own religious history, Faith. It's like you let someone else tell you what it is.How Catholic of you. And that simply isn't true. Well, it isn't true if we're taking your logic. The Crusades were primarily for the retaking of the Holy Lands from the Muslims, but it had a secondary attempt to conquer the Eastern Church.You know...those Orthodox.But by your logic, they're not Christians. If Catholics aren't Christian, then neither are Orthodox.

quote:

---

I guess you just don't read much around here do you?

---

The irony is strong in you, isn't it?You literally didn't read my post and are complaining about reading comprehension?

Sorry Faith but Roman Catholics are Bible Believing Christians.You really seem to have a problem with reality.Pogroms were common and done by the Christian Party in power.

You want to judge all of Islam for the actions of extremist Muslims but insist we draw a distinction between Catholics and Protestants? Come on Faith, a little consistency would be nice.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

The PC is thick on this very thread, aimed against me, who else?

---

You're the one laying on the political correctness thick and meaty as if you would die without it.If you don't like having your comments analyzed and commented upon, perhaps you should reconsider what and where you are saying it. If you prefer, perhaps you should find a "safe space" where you can be the "special snowflake" you know you are lest you get "triggered" by having a differing opinion presented to you.The irony is strong in you, isn't it?

And as a matter of fact it was the Muslim Caliph that was the guarantor of safe passage for Christians to visit the sacred Christian and Jewish sites in the Middle East.