# Dead soldiers, happy christians



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508310004

Fundies the world over, making the world a better place...


----------



## Satt (Feb 7, 2006)

Yeah, cause he speaks for all of us.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

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.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 7, 2006)

I agree, using other peoples deaths as an excuse to further your own political or religious ideas is inexcusable.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

It's not even that. They're cheering the fact that people are dead, *and* it has little to do with their primary agenda. "Yay! A soldier's dead because the US harbors gays!" It's amazing one of the bereaved hasn't lit into them with a chainsaw yet.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

Interesting how they make the link to homosexuality being the reason for "God's punishment".  I wonder how they know the mind of God...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 7, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Interesting how they make the link to homosexuality being the reason for "God's punishment". I wonder how they know the mind of God...


I think if God thought it was that important it would be a commandment, but I hear Moses dropped five of them.
Sean


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

The downside of freedom of speech meeting freedom of religion is that the result is sometimes whack jobs like this.


----------



## Satt (Feb 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I think if God thought it was that important it would be a commandment, but I hear Moses dropped five of them.
> Sean


 
Actually, not that it really matters to anyone here, but there are several commandments outside the "Ten Commandments." Those were just the first ten. (And that includes a commandment against homosexuality.) (Not that I am saying you are bad if you are a homosexual so don't get me wrong.) This is what happens when people don't actually read the bible but like to repeat what they hear about it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 7, 2006)

Well, all I have to say Marginal, is that the wackos at "Godhates****.com" claim to be the westburough baptist church, but as best as I can determine, the only baptist church there is  http://www.godseek.us/ and they are not affiliated.  the "godhates" website has no address, no real contact info beyond an email addy, As a matter of fact, even their domain registration is done thru a PO box and not a real address, and they have an invalid mail address at a second domain, www.godhatesamerica.com for their tech contact with network solutions. Not exactly someone to take seriously.
and if you take the time to read it, is all complete fantasy garbage, and, it would seem to me, (READ THAT CAREFULLY,* I AM SAYING IN MY OPINION*) made up to be inflamitory and intentionally spiteful twords the people of america in order to perpetrate some agenda against the Baptist church.   
If I am right, It would seem that you fell for it.  

Whatever.  If people want to keep believing us Christains are all evil hatemongers, I guess its not really my job to correct their opinions.  Until they "come for me" for my beliefs and see how much hate I can muster... I just dont care.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> and if you take the time to read it, is all complete fantasy garbage, and, it would seem to me, (READ THAT CAREFULLY,* I AM SAYING IN MY OPINION*) made up to be inflamitory and intentionally spiteful twords the people of america in order to perpetrate some agenda against the Baptist church.
> If I am right, It would seem that you fell for it.


 
Somehow I doubt it. This isn't that far from those Christian haunted houses ypes like that host locally every halloween.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 8, 2006)

http://www.localnewsleader.com/kindred/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=137781

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0601150209jan15,1,3865391.column?coll=chi-news-col

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060130&s=cottle020306

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060124/COLUMNIST36/601240427

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan06/383433.asp


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 8, 2006)

Wow.

I'm not sure who's more whacked - the protestors who actually believe homosexuality is to blame for soldiers dying, or the whackjob who thinks the protestors are part of the left.

And it does read very Rush-esque, no?  "Your news - digested."  Well ... what is digested food, folks?  That's pretty much what you're hearing from talkshows like that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Somehow I doubt it. This isn't that far from those Christian haunted houses ypes like that host locally every halloween.



I admit that there are groups like that, I based that opion of THIS group by the sheer level of inflamatoiry content, even going so far as to call people who would potentially be interested in joining them morons.  Groups like that need support AND press if they are going to thrive, and going out of your way to keep people who are idiots, er, I mean like minded, seems like a poor move if they are for real, and the kind of thing you expect from someone looking to get a good giggle out of how many people they can piss off.

Also, if you look at this quote from your link:



> The 75-member church, made up primarily of members of Rev. Fred Phelps' extended family



it would seem to me its *mostly* one idiot and his family. Hardly representitive of the faith, and more proof that I am on the right track, IMO.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2006)

Please note this is almost off topic but:

Ill tell you what bothers me, and why I am even posting in this thread...

Just like many narrow minded people of many faiths who feel it is their duty to force you to believe like they do, (something mind you, as a christian you will rarely, if ever, see me do, as I personally dont care if you are saved, go to hell, sacrifice a goat, or pray to the east, whatever...) many people who have issues with our faith for whatever reason feel the need to attack it.

If I were to post how dirty, evil, violent, whatever, the Muslim faith is (which i DONT believe, btw, its an example) many of the same "Christian Haters" would jump to defend them and thier right to be Muslim, while starting threads calling Christians the same things.

BAD HYPOCRITES! BAD!

Bottom line is, if you have a problem with the religion overall, ignore it, if you have a problem with a specific whackjob group like, say, the Morons discussed in this thread... address your issue to them, as opposed to a generalization like "All Christians Hate ****" which is how your belief comes off to me now, based on your use of the general term in the title.  I could take that as a personal attack, and that's a damn fine way to draw fire from the group you hate so much (Christians) and it becomes a nice circle, You slam them, they attack you, so you hate them more, so you slam them, so they attack you... and so on an so on...

Anyhow... I do have to stop and agree with you about one thing here, which I overlooked as you caught me up in your <sarcasm>"Technopunk is a Christian so he hates ****" part of the thread... </sarcasm>

It was pretty idiotic of Hannity to automatically lump these guys in with the left because they hate america...  True, that "attitude" seems to be what is considered stereotypical of the left (NOTE I SAY CONSIDERED STEREOTYPICAL, NOT WHAT IS TRUE) by the Right.... But their other actions are very much what is considered stereotypical of the Right (NOTE I SAY CONSIDERED STEREOTYPICAL, NOT WHAT IS TRUE) by the Left.

​


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 8, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> It was pretty idiotic of Hannity to automatically lump these guys in with the left because they hate america...  True, that "attitude" seems to be what is considered stereotypical of the left (NOTE I SAY CONSIDERED STEREOTYPICAL, NOT WHAT IS TRUE) by the Right.... But their other actions are very much what is considered stereotypical of the Right (NOTE I SAY CONSIDERED STEREOTYPICAL, NOT WHAT IS TRUE) by the Left.



Indeed it is an interesting paradox.  How did we get here, do you suppose?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 8, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Indeed it is an interesting paradox. How did we get here, do you suppose?


 
The 2 Party system, IMO.  It encourages polarization, undermining the middle way.
:yinyang: 

I agree with a lot of what Technopunk is saying here.  Generalizations do not a good argument make.  More importantly, they are unfair, and can be perceived as malicious.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Indeed it is an interesting paradox. How did we get here, do you suppose?


 
Take your pick of any or all of the below:

1) What flatlander said.  The 2 party system.
2) Sheep Mentality.  Letting media celebrities decide what/how we should think.
3) Laziness, and apathy
4) Scapegoating indiviuals as opposed to working for positive change of the* system.*


----------



## Marginal (Feb 8, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> If I were to post how dirty, evil, violent, whatever, the Muslim faith is (which i DONT believe, btw, its an example) many of the same "Christian Haters" would jump to defend them and thier right to be Muslim, while starting threads calling Christians the same things.​


Aw... Few things.

1) The title of the thread was intended to be as "true" as the other thread bearing the "dead soldier, happy X" title. With a similar level of dedication to accuracy and sincerity behind the sentiment. 

2) Christians implies a group of Christians. It does not necessarially imply all Christians.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 8, 2006)

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?

RIIIIIGGGHT.​


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 8, 2006)

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 (Feb 8, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 9, 2006)

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 (Feb 9, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 9, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 9, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 9, 2006)

> 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 Parsons (Feb 9, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 10, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 10, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 10, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 10, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 10, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> 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.  




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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?




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 11, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 11, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 13, 2006)

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 (Feb 13, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 13, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Seems par for the course.


 Whatever that means.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Vs half members?


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




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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.




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 14, 2006)

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

-LISA DENEKA
-MT Moderator-


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Feb 14, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> http://mediamatters.org/items/200508310004
> 
> Fundies the world over, making the world a better place...


 
Actually Phleps comes no where near being a Fundamentalist Christian.  But those with an anti-Christian agenda try to paint him as being so in order to advance that agenda.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 14, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> 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.


True, bro, true.
That SICK-O's "church" is here in my home state...
whoopie!

He's an IDIOT and is not a Christian. Christ said that we'd know people by their Works....by what they do.
This man doesn't know Christ, and he's leading many gullible idiots astray.
Odd fact that I know because I'm near them and hear about them all the time...
The Majority of his "Congregation" are his own inbread relatives!!!
No kidding, something like 70% from what I've heard.

Imagine the family get togethers!!!
sheesh......

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Feb 14, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> Actually Phleps comes no where near being a Fundamentalist Christian. But those with an anti-Christian agenda try to paint him as being so in order to advance that agenda.


X-actly

Your Bro.
John


----------



## Brother John (Feb 14, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> 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.



I don't understand what you are saying. 
Do you think that thousdand upon thousands of "conservative Christians" (fundamentalist or otherwise) believe much the same stuff as what Fred Phelps is putting forth???
Really?

Your Brother 
John


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 14, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I don't understand what you are saying.
> Do you think that thousdand upon thousands of "conservative Christians" (fundamentalist or otherwise) believe much the same stuff as what Fred Phelps is putting forth???
> Really?
> 
> ...


 
Well, let's put it this way....

In social scientific literature, there has been a long line of studies that have made note of a significant correlation between religious fundamentalism (Christian or otherwise) and prejudiced beliefs against outgroups. A few studies even seem to indicate that, at least here in the United States, Christians tend to have more prejudiced views than non-Christians.

Of course, correlation is not causation so this data could be interpreted any number of ways. But, that there is some connection between fundamentalism and prejudice is unmistakable.

Laterz.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 14, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> Actually Phleps comes no where near being a Fundamentalist Christian. But those with an anti-Christian agenda try to paint him as being so in order to advance that agenda.


 
Since fundimentalist = crazy the world over, (no matter what the word that follows is, "fundimentalist X" means the same thing regardless. Bombing abortion clinics, setting genetic research labs, vs suicide bombers in Iraq etc isn't any different) it's sometimes hard to tell the difference. 

Brother John: Calling conservative Christians fundimentalists is like taking the beliefs of Osama and saying they are an accurate reflection of the typical conservative muslim. In both cases, you're defining the norm by the outliers rather than the actual practices of the norm. I was simply poking fun at the double standard applied to one set of intolerable behaviors compared to another.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Of course, correlation is not causation so this data could be interpreted any number of ways.
> Laterz.



I think that this speaks volumes, really.
There are SO many different levels of interolerance and even that (determining what IS "intolerance") is very subjective. I don't see how any "scientific" study could show anything conclusive at all. Having taken several classes on sociology and social psych I can tell you... those studies, more often than not, find out Exactly what they set out to find out and read their presupositions into whatever data they do or do not find.
BUT: I must admit that there is a solid grain of truth in what you say! I know that you are right, that those who are "religious" tend to feel that they have a better than normal grasp on what is right and wrong, acceptable and not... it's pretty much part and parcel with a "belief" system like that. The difference is....IN MY PERSONAL BELIEFS (I'd like to make that 110% clear) a "Christian" should be noted for Three things: Their LOVE of God (Trinity, if you will), their consistancy in between their beliefs and how they live and thirdly.... their LOVE of and Service to their fellow man....WITHOUT their fellow man needing to agree with them or even be "spiritual" or "holy" in the first place.  By the very foundational beliefs of the faith.... it presuposes that NO person, Christian or non-Christian, is any better nor any worse than any other human....and that we Must LOVE them no matter what.

SOrry.... didn't mean to get preachy! Just saying, IF Fred Phelps and his lot were actually in touch with the message of Jesus of Nazareth... they would LOVE and try to CARE for the sinners instead of pointing their finger and crying "HERETIC"....

Hey....
that's you!!!
hahahaha.... (I still get a kick out of your handle there)
It's sort of like Ghandi said concerning "Christians". 
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"_*I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.  	They are so unlike your Christ.*_"
Any real Christian, hearing that...should take PAUSE, *not offense*, and then make the adjustments that they know inside are Right. BUT Too many of my brother and sister Christians would stamp their feet and reject the words of this "pagan". 

There's a difference between determining what is right and what is wrong and living in accord with that....
and
Decrying what is Wrong and attacking those whom aren't like you.
The first is the sign of  'Religious' person..
the second, 
a bigot.
The two SHOULDN'T be seen as inter-changeable terms, but we seldom have anyone to blame but ourselves.  ((but that doesn't keep many from trying anyway))
[/FONT]*
Your Brother
John*

OH Yeah..
MARGINAL: I see (I think) where you're coming from, and you may have a point.... though I hate to admit it.


----------



## bluemtn (Feb 14, 2006)

I agree with you, brother john.  I don't think we should judge anyone, really.  I have my beliefs, and I know I won't always believe what the next person does.  I'm not going to point a finger at someone and say, "your going to..., because I don't like what you..."  It's not my business to make that kind of judgement, nor is it anyone elses here on earth.



> IF Fred Phelps and his lot were actually in touch with the message of Jesus of Nazareth... they would LOVE and try to CARE for the sinners instead of pointing their finger and crying "HERETIC"....


 
I like that.


----------



## Carol (Feb 14, 2006)

tkdgirl said:
			
		

> I have my beliefs, and I know I won't always believe what the next person does. I'm not going to point a finger at someone and say, "your going to..., because I don't like what you..." It's not my business to make that kind of judgement, nor is it anyone elses here on earth.


 
It's just another form of Brahminism, really.  In India, especially in older days, the Brahmins were the blue-bloods that, simply per virtue of being born in to a caste, had special priveledges to perform religious services...and as such, were of a higher social strata.

I have my beliefs, too.  I respect Christianity.  I have nothing against Christians in general.   I have an issue with ANY religious person (including Christians, including those of my own faith) that believe their religion gives them some sort of Brahministic privledge to toss meekness and humility aside in order to indulge themselves in denegrating others.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 15, 2006)

tkdgirl said:
			
		

> I don't think we should judge anyone, really.


 
I'm with you!  
As Mr. Phelps is so fond of harassing people with scripture (out of context and most often against the grain of the original intent) I'd like to see what he thought of some other scripture...


> Romans 14:13 (New King James Version)
> Therefore let us *not judge* one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in _our_ brothers way


Yet he brings pain, confusion and anguish to the family members of fallen soldiers and those who's children have died of aids (wether or not the deceased was even a homosexual or not). 
OR....one of my favorites, directly from Jesus' own words to instruct each believer in THIS kind of matter:


> Luke 6:36-38 (New King James Version)
> 
> 36 *Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.*
> 37 *Judge not, and you shall not be judged.* Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. *For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you*.


 
The words of the one Phelps says he serves, juxtaposed with the actions and words he's used to harm the hearts and minds of God's children.... will rise up and judge him.  It's too bad too. I wish he'd stop. I wish he'd quit doing these harmful/hurtful things!! Both for his own good but more especially for those who's spirits are hurt by him while they are already dealing with pain.
This man is just plain wrong. 
That is my judgement I guess, and I'm OK with that.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Feb 15, 2006)

AlSO:
Non Christians...
thanks for putting up with my preachiness there. Just thought I'd highlight how this guy contradicts the very beliefs that he 'says' motivates him.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Marginal (Feb 15, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> AlSO:
> Non Christians...
> thanks for putting up with my preachiness there. Just thought I'd highlight how this guy contradicts the very beliefs that he 'says' motivates him.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, but then, was an advocate for the poor etc. Not many walk the walk when it comes to following that example. Not when outmoded social darwinism and a Ben Franklin quote (God helps those who help themselves) are viewed as a better representation of what Jesus was really talking about.


----------



## Josh (Feb 16, 2006)

.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 16, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I think that this speaks volumes, really.
> There are SO many different levels of interolerance and even that (determining what IS "intolerance") is very subjective. I don't see how any "scientific" study could show anything conclusive at all. Having taken several classes on sociology and social psych I can tell you... those studies, more often than not, find out Exactly what they set out to find out and read their presupositions into whatever data they do or do not find.


 
While what you say may be true of individual studies, what I am talking about is a decided and continous _trend_ of empirical research in social psychology and sociology.

Study after study has confirmed the link between religious fundamentalism and prejudice. It is an extremely well-established finding within the scientific literature at this point. This isn't just Christian fundamentalism, either, as similar findings have been found concerning Jewish fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists.

However, as I pointed out before, correlation is not causation. It could be that religious fundamentalism is inculcating intolerance and prejudice within its adherents (i.e., fundamentalism causes prejudice). Or, it could just as easily be that those that are already intolerant and prejudiced are drawn to religious fundamentalism (i.e., prejudice causes fundamentalism). Or, just as likely, there could be a third, unknown variable that is influencing both (i.e., an unknown variable causes both prejudice and fundamentalism).

At this point, we just don't know the source or direction of the causation. All we can say with certainty that there is _some_ significant relationship between the two variables.

Laterz.


----------

