Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lying For Jesus Award
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 28 of 279 (379175)
01-23-2007 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
01-18-2007 8:26 PM


I Vote "No"
I have to say that I am adamantly opposed to any such topic. I feel that singling out forum members in such a venue would be both in extremely bad taste AND violate both the spirit and intent of this forum. I'm afraid my Admin alter-ego would perforce be obligated to close any such thread. In addition, the temptation to suspend any member posting such a thread would be more than I could probably resist. Get the picture?
However, I think if you were to propose something along the lines of "Lying for God and Darwin" (sort of a "Creationists/Darwinists Say the Funniest Things") wherein members could cull statements, etc from elsewhere on the web (essays, forum posts, news articles, etc), provide a link and possibly a brief paragraph explaining the absurdity, it could be both interesting and potentially hilarious. Then we could even vote on the "Most Absurd Statement of the Month" or something every month. I don't envision a debate thread. However, I can envision the nominations spawning interesting topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 01-18-2007 8:26 PM Taz has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 43 of 279 (379699)
01-25-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by riVeRraT
01-25-2007 7:53 AM


Re: Who represents who?
I'm not sure, rat. I think jar has a point, although he may be overstating things a bit. As a non-Christian, it requires an act of will to decouple these folks from "Christians" writ large - even though absolutely none of the self-professed Christians I associate with regularly have anything at all to do with them. Intellectually, I understand the difference, but these folks are the noisy ones, the obnoxious ones, the ones that have television access, who are constantly in the news, etc. Yes, I'm well aware they represent a miniscule fraction of all Christians. And yes, I'm aware they are focused on their own agendas, which in fact may not be compatible with Christianity. However, they are the ones attempting (or in some cases succeeding) in legislating science curricula, morality, etc. How are we supposed to tell the difference? The point jar keeps pounding is that when the "silent majority" of Christians avoid actively and vociferously denouncing the highly visible charlatans, cheats, con-men, and all-around jerks who PUBLICALLY proclaim they are speaking for Christians and represent Christianity (even if their own idiosyncratic version of it), it is tantamount to tacit approval of them. Jar is just trying (in his own illimitable way), to get "True Christians" off their collective butts and clean their own house.
Or so I read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2007 7:53 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2007 7:10 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 60 of 279 (380034)
01-26-2007 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by anastasia
01-25-2007 11:12 PM


Re: Who represents who?
All depends on who is doing the looking. I prefer to look at the countless saints who have done everything in their power to be great examples of christianity. I look at Mother Teresa, Miguel Pro, Damien De Veuster, Maximillian Kolbe. I find saints even in our midst. Don't sell out a proud heritage over a few rotten apples. What is visible is not what is important. It is the humble, unrecognized acts which make the person.
On the contrary, it is the visible manifestations of Christianity that do get noticed. Unless you are intimately familiar with the actions of the folks that are doing good work, those of us who are non-Christians are constantly bombarded with negative examples. How many people have even heard of the Silesian Missions, for instance? With the exception of a couple of screw-ups (about par for development organizations), these folks have quietly been going about doing excellent work in remote areas in anti-trafficking in persons, skills and capacity building, poverty alleviation, etc, among the poorest of the poor in the developing world - all without demanding that the people they help also buy a bible?
What we DO see and hear are people like the Catholic Archbishop of South Africa who not only demanded that contraception be banned as a sin (in a region where inept, corrupt or otherwise marginal governments are facing an impossible population vs resource crisis), but proclaimed loudly that HIV was not only not a disease, but was in fact the Will of God. We're supposed to take what away from that?
When Christians squash the evil done in the name of Christianity - or at least loudly denounce the practitioners - then maybe you'll have a case. In the meantime, fairly or unfairly, y'all are going to be tarred with the same brush. That's how it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by anastasia, posted 01-25-2007 11:12 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 01-27-2007 12:22 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 66 of 279 (380415)
01-27-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by anastasia
01-27-2007 12:22 AM


Re: Who represents who?
I, as a white person watching the news in Philadelphia, am bombarded with reports of African-American violence, while the good and decent actions of black people do not make it to the spotlight. Why is anti-christian sentiment the last acceptable prejudice?
Well, the simplest explanation is that "blacks" (or Hispanics, or whatever ethnic group is in the news), do not appear/portray themselves as a monolithic "organization" that attempts to legislate morality, control what may be read or watched, nor solicit money etc from the rest of us. "Blacks" are not demanding to get their particular customs, idiosyncratic worldview, or symbols accepted by everyone else. They are not lobbying school boards to get "black" science accepted is legitimate (although there have been a few attempts at historical revisionism, none of which amounted to much). We are not constantly bombarded by "blacks" proclaiming that non-"blacks" are doomed to eternal torment etc unless we become "black" or some such nonsense. And finally, "blacks" don't insist that non-"blacks" are unpatriotic and shouldn't be considered citizens. I'm very surprised you can't see the difference.
Yes, the Salesians were founded IIRC by St John Bosco. I have recieved their newsletters and my family has supported them for as long as I can remember.
I've worked for them (under contract). I was very struck by the no-strings-attached sincerity of the folks I encountered. Keep supporting them - they do good work.
One thing at a time. We have denounced Waco, the KKK, slavery, and forced marriage of young girls to polygamists.
If you have done all those things, then I'm afraid it either didn't get much play in the news, or was drowned out by the highly vocal supporters of such. I think you also need to support this contention - IIRC it was the federal government that bloodily suppressed the Waco cult; it is/was civil rights workers (who also happened to be Christian, admittedly) who have suppressed the KKK - but not in the name of religion; it was good, God-fearing Christians who until 1865 supported slavery, at least in the US, and it wasn't until we'd paid the cost of over a million casualties that the practice was stopped - and there are few if any Christian groups directly supporting current anti-slavery efforts (the Salesians and CRS being two); it was a Christian group (albeit one that in many ways is an outlyer) that up until relatively recently espoused voluntary polygamy, and that in fact has members that still sub tabula practices it (I'm not sure what you are referring to in the "forced marriage" bit - could you clarify?).
We have denounced end of the world fear tactics,
On the contrary, end of the worlders, rather than being denounced as you claim, appear to be actually increasing in popularity. There are way more folks spouting end times revelations than at any time in my life to this point (maybe they're just getting more air time - I'm willing to concede the point if you can show where any mainstream denomination has come out completely against the end-timers).
corruption of the priesthood,
This is simply disingenuous. The Catholic Church has been notorious for attempting to avoid any reference to internal problems, preferring to quietly remove corrupt or pedophiliac priests. Oddly, I don't hold it against them - no organization likes to air its dirty laundry in public. However, the current scandals rocking the Church only surfaced when outsiders brought the problems to public scrutiny. The Church only admitted them when forced to. The facts tend to refute your contention here.
and the actions of many christain leaders of government or false prophets like Hovind.
This statement doesn't match my recollection. When has ANY church, denomination, or sect denounced ANY so-called "Christian" leader - except in doctrinal context? And the whole problem with the creationist movement is that the mainstream is NOT denouncing the charlatans like Hovind. (I take that back, the Clergy Project is a stellar example of what needs to be done. Unfortunately, it isn't enough, and it isn't consistently promulgated. In addition, I give very high marks to the clergy who take the witness stand in opposition to these losers when some attempt at legal action is undertaken. However, I submit the churches have to consistently match the effectiveness of the crooks if they want to have their linen appear white. One denunciation doesn't do it - maybe mainstream Christianity just needs a new publicist.)
It was a fellow christian who turned him in to the IRS, remember?
Actually, my understanding is the IRS has been after him for years. He's been subpoened, jailed for contempt, forced to pay fines, etc for years for various infractions. Unlike some of my fellow posters here, I am very happy the schmuck finally got nailed - I enjoy it when a con man gets his come-uppance. I don't feel sorry for him at all. However, you need to substantiate that it was a "fellow Christian" who turned him in in the name of Christianity for this statement to have any weight.
Christians are no different than the rest of humanity. We are ALL tarred with the same brush.
If you simply mean that as human beings we are as a species generally selfish scumbags in the aggregate, however we may be individually, then I'd probably agree with you. However, us heathen non-Christians aren't attempting to portray ourselves any differently. We don't claim the moral high ground. If you Christians are going to arrogantly proclaim you're better than everyone else because of your special relationship with an unevidenced entity, then you need to collectively ACT like you deserve the distinction. I'd even be willing to grant that you ARE better than the rest of us in that case.
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 01-27-2007 12:22 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 10:00 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 01-27-2007 12:12 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 71 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2007 7:07 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 72 of 279 (380664)
01-28-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
01-27-2007 10:00 AM


Re: Speak out and speak up.
I've heard of the "Left Behind" game, although probably because I've been out of the country so long, it hasn't made much of an impact. How "popular" is it really, and why? I mean, is it the subject matter or the fact that it is a violent shoot-'em-up that cause people to buy it? (BTW: Someone should probably tell the authors that if the myriad of entrepreneurs overseas who specialize in pirating video games don't consider it worth pirating, maybe the game isn't as good as they think it is... )
reason is often not showmanship and making informed decisions is not as easy as having someone else think for you.
The most common view of Christianity today is the Christian Infomercial as Sideshow known as Christian TV and preached several times a week, not from a pulpit but from the Carny sound stage that most Christian Churches have become.
Today the Voice of Christianity is Not reason, but raw emotion, not intellect but passion, not questions but answers.
And that is precisely the point I've been trying to get across to anastasia. The Rat appears to agree with this perception. I can understand why people would want to act defensively to counter this perception, but at the same time I still don't understand why more isn't being done - individually or organizationally. Obviously, this perception doesn't reflect "True Christianity (tm)". Perhaps it's a "forest for the trees" problem - if you are a member of an organized church that ISN'T part of the problem, then it may be hard to understand the view from outside.
Thanks for the links - those groups look interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 10:00 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 01-28-2007 11:18 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2007 9:17 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 73 of 279 (380672)
01-28-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by anastasia
01-27-2007 12:12 PM


Re: Who represents who?
What does it matter what blacks or hispanics are TRYING to do? The question was about whether what SOME do should cause you to judge ALL. Should the visible actions of a community affect the entire community? You did not answer this, but instead described one community's mission.
You've missed the distinction I was trying to describe, and in consequence missed the answer to your question. There is no "community" in the sense of Christianity reflected in other "groups". Christianity on the other hand, at least from the outside, IS a monolithic group - same basic beliefs, same dogmas, same face.
To forestall the obvious quibble that there are a plethora of Christian groups, denominations, sects, etc, all with their own view of Christianity - yes, I'm aware of that. The Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary claims 39,000 such worldwide, while wiki (for what it's worth) claims 11,000 Pentecostal groups alone. To a non-Christian such as myself, the doctrinal and other differences between these groups are so vanishingly small as to be functionally non-existent. So when a highly-visible and -vocal self-proclaimed Christian states "All Believers should...", I have no reason (except my own intellectual honesty) to take him or her at anything but face value. After all, even you should be able to admit that to a non-shephard, all sheep look pretty much alike. Undoubtedly the sheep can tell the difference, of course.
I am referring to the types of cults which marry young girls to their elders and/or family members before they are of age.
This is all you took away from that paragraph? Do you then admit that you overstated the case on the other examples you gave? Beyond that, I'm still unclear to which "cults" you are referring, since I haven't been exposed to any Christian groups where this practice is common (I am familiar with some Moslem and a number of traditionalist - usually animist - ethnic groups where this is practiced).
You are assuming that there exists one 'christian' force which is supposed to stand up against other christians. There is not. Christianity is made up of thousands of sects, some opposing one thing, some another. The RCC for example has no control over all of christianity, and the voice of one group or one individual is only a voice. It is not a law. Good God-fearing christians will stand up for right whether or not it is in the name of religion. The point is, they do. As do good people from every walk of life.
No, I'm not "assuming" anything. I am obviously well aware of the staggering plethora of Christian groups floating around (see above). After all, I'm an atheist surrounded by a sea of believers. Nor do I expect a single voice to represent those opposed to the crooks and religious charlatans. I maintain, on the other hand, that I would expect to see a thousand or ten thousand voices speaking out - each from their own grounds - against these people. That I DON'T see. Rather, I see a handful only whose voices are drowned by others speaking in the name of the religion. The Clergy Project is one of the few - and highly laudable - examples of what is needed, as I noted previously.
Why? You don't think the people who complained about the priesthood were themselves Catholic, and that every pulpit across the world did not resonate with disappointment and condemnation?
I have no idea of the religious affiliation of those who first brought the scandals into the light. If you say they were Catholics, then I have no reason to doubt you. In addition, I'm quite sure the "disappointment" and "condemnation" from the pulpit were loud. The point you seem to have missed, however, is that there would likely have been NO condemnation, etc, if someone hadn't spilled the beans. The Church's investigation, what little has been revealed anyway, shows that these practices had been on-going for decades. It wasn't until the scandal broke upon the public conscience that the Church even admitted there were problems. As I noted, I don't have a problem with this - it's pretty standard corporate behavior, and the RCC is nothing if not a megacorporation. I don't condone it, but I do understand it.
Why? Do blacks have to turn in their criminals in the name of race? This is your rule, and it seems to be grasping at straws. The point is that good christians do exist, and they DO NOT have to act in the name of anything to make it 'right'. Should I go out on the streets and open doors for folk the whole while proclaiming Christ? Actions speak louder than words, you know. If you want substantiation it is easy to find on Wiki et al. Her name was Rebekah something.
What rule? You now seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. Very poor debate tactics. After all, you were the one that made a big deal about it being a Christian that turned the fool in to the IRS. As I pointed out it is immaterial who did it, unless you can make the case that the individual concerned did it in the name of his/her religion. In which event, you might have a point. However you haven't substantiated this claim in any way. This tactic is tantamount to the creationists making a big deal over the fact that Newton was a Christian (by implication making his religion responsible for his science), which of course had nothing to do with his scientific credentials. After all, Principia Mathematica wasn't a religious tract...
Who do you think has the authority to put them out of business? NO ONE. Again, christian leaders have denounced Bush, end-of-world, you name it. They denounce doctrines and views. That is all they CAN do. And not every christian opposes the same things.
If, as an illustration example, there are 5,000 end-of-the-world sects, what are the other 34,000 Christian groups doing? Don't feel bad, however. I ask a similar question of my Moslem friends, colleagues and acquaintances. Can you guess what it might be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anastasia, posted 01-27-2007 12:12 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by anastasia, posted 01-28-2007 1:24 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 74 of 279 (380674)
01-28-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
01-27-2007 10:00 AM


On the Nosey
Thanks again for the links. This is brilliant and completely relevant to this topic (and provides another example of what needs to be done more:
quote:
Sometimes the only Christians who receive media attention are those who make the most noise with their extreme views. Granted, they do provide entertainment value - extremists are fascinating. ...
For example, the vast majority of Episcopalians do not believe that the theory of evolution is an atheistic conspiracy designed to destroy the faith of their children. ...
Nor do we believe the Bible was auto-dictated by means of an infallible process that cannot be questioned. When we read the Bible, we employ God's gift of critical reasoning as well as faith. Those who believe that life would be meaningless if the Bible were found to be imperfect would do well, in our opinion, to summon a bit of existential courage. Rev. Matthew Lawrence, Sex, Religion and the Culture Wars: An Open Letter to the Community, from Center for Progressive Christianity
Now if more folks like the good Reverend Matthews - say the 1 billion plus RCC members worldwide - would speak out like this, it is entirely possible that the whole thing would go away. Ya'll really do need a good publicist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 10:00 AM jar has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 80 of 279 (380856)
01-29-2007 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by riVeRraT
01-28-2007 9:17 PM


Re: Speak out and speak up.
Rat,
I agree (mostly) with what you wrote. At the least, I understand - enough for the purposes of this discussion - where you're coming from. I concur that there is in reality no monolithic "Christianity" per se (see my previous reply to anastasia). Nor is it my expectation that there be one voice condemning the crooks, charlatans, con-men, and out-and-out nutcases that are - willy nilly - the most visible modern face of Christianity. I do not condemn all of Christianity for them. I would, however, as I mentioned to anastasia, expect/hope that IF you (generically) want to change the outsiders' perception, there SHOULD be 10,000 voices speaking out - each from their own particular stance. I'm aware that this isn't probably all that realistic. On the other hand, the longer the bozos are permitted to pass unchallenged, the perception that Christianity is populated with nutcases will continue to prevail or even grow.
Let me give you an analogy that is close to my own heart. When you hear the term "Republican", what is your perception? Don't you immediately think "neo-con, right-wing, religious nutjob"? I certainly do - and I am that extremely rare, and possibly doomed-to-extinction, breed: an atheist Republican. I have spoken out (and written out) repeatedly against the so-called Republicans that currently control the party. I have repeatedly pointed out that the current crop have abrogated/violated the very foundational tenets of the party. I truly believe, in my heart of hearts, that I'm not the only one of the "old school" who think this. And yet, the voice of reason is muted. Most of "us" have simply given up, and changed to "libertarian" or other affiliation - although there are a few organizations still out there trying to change things. However, I concede that we're a vanishingly small minority.
The external perception of both modern Christianity and Republicanism is highly negative. I submit, however, that Christians probably have a better opportunity to change this than I do...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2007 9:17 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 11:55 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 101 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 5:12 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 107 of 279 (381074)
01-29-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by anastasia
01-29-2007 6:01 PM


Re: Who represents who?
All I can say is that it must be nice to have no atheist denominations to take the blame and the responsibility when one of you goes awry.
Are you kidding? We get accused of supporting Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, and every other secular wack job out there. Talk about lumping everyone in the same category. Unless you're talking about Dawkins, and there are quite a few atheists who don't agree with him. However, I'm not sure the situations are analogous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 6:01 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 190 of 279 (381949)
02-02-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kader
02-01-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Who represents who?
I truly believe that they would start silencing there brothers..the one that took a wrong turn somewhere.
I think you may have put your finger on something there. There was never a shadow of a doubt in my mind that once the fundamentalists get rid of all us outsiders, they'll turn on each other like ravening dogs. Unfortunately, the likes of me won't be around to witness it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kader, posted 02-01-2007 4:04 PM Kader has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 02-02-2007 6:05 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 192 of 279 (381979)
02-02-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by jar
02-02-2007 6:05 PM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
I'll save you a spot next to me when we go up against the wall...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 02-02-2007 6:05 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2007 8:53 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 217 of 279 (382095)
02-03-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Buzsaw
02-02-2007 8:53 PM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
Relax. You're not a Biblical fundie kind of Christian.
Truth, indeed. On the other hand, the history of both fundamentalist theocracies and oppressive fundamentalist governments based on other (usually secular) ideologies in the past leads me to conclude that the first folks up against the wall will be the ones most opposed to the guiding ideology. Only then will they turn inward on persecute their own. Examples include:
1. Saloth Sar (later known as Pol Pot) in Cambodia whose extreme "back to tradition" revolution - designed to foster a "return" to a never-existing pure agrarian society - began by eliminating anyone who he and his thugs felt were tainted by "Western" influences (including teachers, business owners, anyone who wore glasses, etc). Ultimately the cost was some 20% of the pre-revolution population (in the US, the equivalent of 60 million people). The Khmer Rouge purges began with the outsiders, then culminated with the job-lot deaths of the very peasants he had supposedly idolized.
2. Khomeini's theocratic revolution in Iran also began with the elimination of outsiders - also based on attempts to eliminate "Western" (read: "secular") influences. Ultimately, he also purged the universities and oppressed any internal religious dissent. Although substantially less bloody (discounting the Iran-Iraq war), than Pol Pot's revolution, some ~20,000 teachers, 8000 military officers, tens of thousands of Bah'ai (deemed heretical) and scores of thousands of others were dispossessed of jobs, lands and livliehoods based on their "lack" of religious purity. The threat of the sharia crime of takfir, or apostasy - a capital offense - was (supposedly) used widely to intimidate anyone, even other Shi'a, who didn't buy into Khomeini's version of reality.
3. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is another classic example. Beginning with the elimination of the bourgoisie and the anti-revolution forces (eg, the disorganized "White Russian" armies of people like Denikan and Kolchak), it ultimately spent the next approx. 50 years murdering its own. I don't suppose I need to go into too much more detail here.
Anyway, you get the picture: the pattern is always the same. Start with the outsiders and when they're no longer around, start slaughtering your own.
Now - before you get silly like Hoot Man - you should be aware that I personally (in spite of my somewhat hyperbolic tongue-in-cheek postings on this thread) don't really believe that the US will become an Iranian-style Christian Theocracy. At least not in my lifetime. The country is too large and too diverse. However, the trends I see occurring could very well lead to a situation where some type of fundamentalist-style ideology does take control leading to a type of society in which I would not wish to live or raise my children. The exact kind of situation that folks like Jefferson, Franklin and others warned about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2007 8:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 218 of 279 (382100)
02-03-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Fosdick
02-02-2007 7:55 PM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
Children, children, the boogy man doesn't live under your beds any more. You'd think all the Christian ignoramuses have AIDS or somethings, and all they got is one old dead Jesus. If it's the "ravening dogs" of Christian evangelism you fear most, I'd say your priorities are messed up.
Ah, Hoot. You're mistaken. I don't "fear" any of you. I truly dislike what the neo-religious right ideologues are trying to do, and I oppose them on both philosophical and practical grounds. I am truly concerned about the potential end-state and/or implications of the rising tide of ultra-fundamentalistism in the US. I do not personally fear for my safety. I do "fear" for basic democratic institutions and freedoms enjoyed by Americans up to this point. I have no desire to see the US become a third-world country, which is at least one possible outcome of the current situation.
This thread is about one symptom of a much larger disease. The fact that the Liars for God are so pervasive (or at least loud) with limited opposition is a case in point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Fosdick, posted 02-02-2007 7:55 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Fosdick, posted 02-03-2007 12:47 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 219 of 279 (382102)
02-03-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by anglagard
02-03-2007 1:05 AM


Re: Fun Facts About Robertson
I didn't realize Robertson supported Taylor (of all people). Taylor was a real scumbag. I was attached to 22 MEU in 1990 during operation Sharp Edge (on the USS Trashbin - errr, I mean USS Saipan), the evacuation of Monrovia. Sammy Doe had his back against the wall between Taylor's and Taylor's former lieutenant Prince Johnson's forces. We pulled out ~3000 people. The atrocity stories told by refugees fleeing both sides were something to give you nightmares.
Funny that a True Christian would support a murderous thug like Taylor. Any port in a storm, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by anglagard, posted 02-03-2007 1:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 227 of 279 (382141)
02-03-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Fosdick
02-03-2007 12:47 PM


Re: Who the Fundies will come after first
Oddly, I agree with you to a point (hey, there's a first time for everything...). However, in spite of some evidence to the contrary, I don't really think the fanatic end-timers will ever be in a position to really carry out their fantasies. That they can be manipulated by those of the new right whose stated goals are the de-secularization of society is entirely possible, however. That may be a fatal mistake itself - "tiger by the tail" and so forth. In any event, I think the threat to democracy and freedom from within the US is a more credible, near-term problem. The continual erosion of civil liberties, etc, promulgated by those who wrap themselves in the banner of Christianity - the folks jar calls the Cult of Ignorance - in order to further their personal ideological agendas and quest for power are the things we need to be concerned about.
However, I don't see Armageddon happening for religious reasons - although that may be one of the excuses. Humans are really good at coming up with reasons to fight each other. Religion is merely one that has been used to good effect over the millenia. If World War III happens, it will be because of the usual issues: greed, power, and fanaticism in the service of ideology - religious or otherwise. That IS something to be worried about, but if it happens, then I think the Revelationists will be pretty disappointed in the outcome. As Einstein said (one of my favorite quotes): "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with stones and clubs". The thing the fanatics don't seem to realize is that if they achieve their stated objectives, there won't be any Rapture - just a handful of half-naked survivors squatting in the ruins of gutted cities.
One good step would be for more overt condemnation of the crooks and ideologues who are using religion as a shield.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Fosdick, posted 02-03-2007 12:47 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 02-03-2007 2:13 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024