Something I need to get off my chest [Archive]

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 05:57

Fassitude

28-12-2007, 06:00

while it will not tolerate (or at least shy away from severely) any such behavior towards Islam

Sounds like a pretty sucky society you imagine you live in.

Vandal-Unknown

28-12-2007, 06:02

Unfortunately, Islam's practices (I'd have to say no on the teachings) is also based on the culture of the Arabs,... which (IMO) is incompatible with the rest of the world.

South Lizasauria

28-12-2007, 06:10

OK, this is something I've been thinking about for a while, and after the death of Prime Minister Bhutto, it's come to the top of my head. Just hear me out.

In today's society, there are many references to negative aspects of Christianity. Just today, while reading "Wired" magazine, it details how the lead singer of a band (his name escapes me) decided to create an album based on the theme that in 20 or so years, America will be run by an oppressive Christian dictatorship, where free thought and speech will be severely hindered, if not banned completely. While I realize this is of course fantasy, It made me realize how tolerant society is of ignorance towards religions such as Christianity and Judaism, while it will not tolerate (or at least shy away from severely) any such behavior towards Islam.

Granted, a vast majority of practicing Muslims in this world are peaceful people who do not wish to harm anyone, let alone let loose a worldwide jihad and kill all the "infidels" on the planet. But it's asinine to ignore the bloody riots, suicide bombings, and senseless violence that occurs seemingly on a day-to-day basis in the Middle East, all supposedly in the name of Allah.

Why is it, then, that society seems to have to pander to these extremists? The (in)famous cartoon, for example, which had Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head, wasn't included in many magazines and other publications in the west because the editors of these publications were afraid they would offend someone. These same publications, though, wouldn't hesitate to publish something mocking the Catholic church following the sex scandal that swept the nation a few years ago (something that I'm not making light of, btw), or Judaism, or another religion.

It's just something to think about. Whenever you see Christians or Jews slighted in a newspaper, on TV, or in some other form of media, you never see a riot in the streets of New York calling for the beheading of a prominent media figure. However, radical Muslims seem to use any type of perceived slight to their religion as the perfect reason to start one of these very riots.

Oh well, like I said, I just needed to get it off my chest. Call the fatwah on me now and get it over with :p

Why should we take entertainers more seriously than actual proffessionals? That guys an idiot. If anything Christianity will lose power not gain it, and if there is a dictatorship in the future it'll either be ran by some major entrepreneur/big business or by belligerent liberals who have this passionate hatred for Christians.

Cannot think of a name

28-12-2007, 06:17

These same publications, though, wouldn't hesitate to publish something mocking the Catholic church following the sex scandal that swept the nation a few years ago (something that I'm not making light of, btw), or Judaism, or another religion.

Unless you can do a one to one on publications that actively didn't show the comic (not just didn't show, but as policy didn't) I'm going to call bullshit. We eggshell around Christians all the damn time. It wasn't until recently when the tide was too much to stand that anyone pushed back at them at all.

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 06:22

Unless you can do a one to one on publications that actively didn't show the comic (not just didn't show, but as policy didn't) I'm going to call bullshit. We eggshell around Christians all the damn time. It wasn't until recently when the tide was too much to stand that anyone pushed back at them at all.

Here (http://thephoenix.com/BigBlogOnCampus/PermaLink.aspx?guid=31944e08-4bcd-4c44-a4b4-98aad18b582f) is one example. Also, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons#_note-13) is a list of some of the papers around the world where disciplinary action was taken upon members of the staff for intending to publish/publishing the cartoon.

Cannot think of a name

28-12-2007, 06:28

Here (http://thephoenix.com/BigBlogOnCampus/PermaLink.aspx?guid=31944e08-4bcd-4c44-a4b4-98aad18b582f) is one example. Also, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons#_note-13) is a list of some of the papers around the world where disciplinary action was taken upon members of the staff for intending to publish/publishing the cartoon.

Your half way there. Now find where they gleefully make fun of Christians. Same papers.

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 06:32

Your half way there. Now find where they gleefully make fun of Christians. Same papers.

Well, although I cannot find an example online (although it would again, be asinine of you to pretend you're unaware of such behavior), I did find this article (http://www.parttimepundit.com/archives/2542) detailing some reinforcing of typical Christian stereotypes at an American university. Just imagine how pleased all of the radicals in the Middle East would be if a similar lesson taught that all Muslims carry bombs strapped to them at all times, so you should probably be careful around them.

Cannot think of a name

28-12-2007, 06:50

Well, although I cannot find an example online (although it would again, be asinine of you to pretend you're unaware of such behavior), I did find this article (http://www.parttimepundit.com/archives/2542) detailing some reinforcing of typical Christian stereotypes at an American university. Just imagine how pleased all of the radicals in the Middle East would be if a similar lesson taught that all Muslims carry bombs strapped to them at all times, so you should probably be careful around them.

You're not understanding this. Same paper, not showing the cartoon as policy AND showing cartoons making fun of Christians. NOT relating the two instances from different sources.

Ashmoria

28-12-2007, 06:59

In today's society, there are many references to negative aspects of Christianity. Just today, while reading "Wired" magazine, it details how the lead singer of a band (his name escapes me) decided to create an album based on the theme that in 20 or so years, America will be run by an oppressive Christian dictatorship, where free thought and speech will be severely hindered, if not banned completely. While I realize this is of course fantasy, It made me realize how tolerant society is of ignorance towards religions such as Christianity and Judaism, while it will not tolerate (or at least shy away from severely) any such behavior towards Islam.

you need to start listening to the michael savage show on the radio. he says such ugly things about islam on a regular basis that it will warm the cockles of your heart. never again will you think that dissing islam is discouraged in this country.

United Chicken Kleptos

28-12-2007, 07:02

Dammit, the title wasn't sexual innuendo.

*leaves disappointed*

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 07:02

Are you fucking shitting me?

We live in a society where a mormon presidential candidate has his qualifications questioned over whether he's "christian enough" to be president.

We live in a society where Hindu shopkeepers were savagely beaten after 9/11 by folks who thought they looked muslim

We live in a society where people who are best selling authors publically state that she believes that the population of Afghanistan should be forceably converted to christianity.

We live in a society where, after the first muslim was elected to congress, people protested over the fact he refused to be sworn in on a bible.

We live in a society where someone opens fucking pig racing next to a mosque because he doesn't want it in his neighborhood.

We live in a society where the christian right has managed to get "under god" in our pledge, "in god we trust" on our money, and intelligent design in our classroom.

Where the hell do YOU live?

Straughn

28-12-2007, 08:13

Straughn

28-12-2007, 08:17

BTW, the musician was probably Trent Reznor, for the Year Zero album.
Some good tunes on it - The Good Soldier
The Vessel
My Violent Heart
The Great Destroyer
and, of course ...
Hey man, please don't make a sound
Take a look around, can't you see what's right in front of you
Have a little taste, no more time to waste
You don't wanna get left behind cause it's all coming down right now
How hard is it to see
Put your faith in me
I sure wouldn't want to be praying to
To the wrong piece of wood
You should get where you belong
Everything you know is wrong
Come on, sing along, everybody now

God given

And He gives us sight
And we see the light
And it burned so bright
Now we know we're right
And His kingdom come
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutley true
That didn't come right from His mouth
And He wants me to tell you.

Wait, step into the light
How can this be right?
I'm afraid we're gonna ask you to leave
This you cannot win
With the color of your skin
You won't be getting into the Promised Land
This is just another case
You people still don't know your place
Step aside, out the way, wipe that look of your face
Cuz we are the divine separated from the swine
Come on, sing along, everybody now
God given

And He gives us sight
And we see the light
And it burned so bright
Now you know we're right
And His kingdom come
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

And He gives us sight
And we see the light
And it burned so bright
Now you know we're right
And His kingdom come
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutley true
That didn't come right from His mouth
And He wants me to tell you.

Unlucky_and_unbiddable

28-12-2007, 08:39

Zayun2

28-12-2007, 08:59

OK, this is something I've been thinking about for a while, and after the death of Prime Minister Bhutto, it's come to the top of my head. Just hear me out.

In today's society, there are many references to negative aspects of Christianity. Just today, while reading "Wired" magazine, it details how the lead singer of a band (his name escapes me) decided to create an album based on the theme that in 20 or so years, America will be run by an oppressive Christian dictatorship, where free thought and speech will be severely hindered, if not banned completely. While I realize this is of course fantasy, It made me realize how tolerant society is of ignorance towards religions such as Christianity and Judaism, while it will not tolerate (or at least shy away from severely) any such behavior towards Islam.

Granted, a vast majority of practicing Muslims in this world are peaceful people who do not wish to harm anyone, let alone let loose a worldwide jihad and kill all the "infidels" on the planet. But it's asinine to ignore the bloody riots, suicide bombings, and senseless violence that occurs seemingly on a day-to-day basis in the Middle East, all supposedly in the name of Allah.

Why is it, then, that society seems to have to pander to these extremists? The (in)famous cartoon, for example, which had Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head, wasn't included in many magazines and other publications in the west because the editors of these publications were afraid they would offend someone. These same publications, though, wouldn't hesitate to publish something mocking the Catholic church following the sex scandal that swept the nation a few years ago (something that I'm not making light of, btw), or Judaism, or another religion.

It's just something to think about. Whenever you see Christians or Jews slighted in a newspaper, on TV, or in some other form of media, you never see a riot in the streets of New York calling for the beheading of a prominent media figure. However, radical Muslims seem to use any type of perceived slight to their religion as the perfect reason to start one of these very riots.

Oh well, like I said, I just needed to get it off my chest. Call the fatwah on me now and get it over with :p

And you do realize that the majority of these attacks are coming from people that are poor right? Of course, there's no correlation between suicide bombings and poverty, it's all just a coincidence.

Unfortunately, Islam's practices (I'd have to say no on the teachings) is also based on the culture of the Arabs,... which (IMO) is incompatible with the rest of the world.

Well that's a bit racist.

Are you fucking shitting me?

We live in a society where a mormon presidential candidate has his qualifications questioned over whether he's "christian enough" to be president.

We live in a society where Hindu shopkeepers were savagely beaten after 9/11 by folks who thought they looked muslim

We live in a society where people who are best selling authors publically state that she believes that the population of Afghanistan should be forceably converted to christianity.

We live in a society where, after the first muslim was elected to congress, people protested over the fact he refused to be sworn in on a bible.

We live in a society where someone opens fucking pig racing next to a mosque because he doesn't want it in his neighborhood.

We live in a society where the christian right has managed to get "under god" in our pledge, "in god we trust" on our money, and intelligent design in our classroom.

Where the hell do YOU live?

America, fuck yeah!

Wilgrove

28-12-2007, 09:27

Nodinia

28-12-2007, 09:52

Evil Cantadia

28-12-2007, 11:31

The (in)famous cartoon, for example, which had Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head, wasn't included in many magazines and other publications in the west because the editors of these publications were afraid they would offend someone. These same publications, though, wouldn't hesitate to publish something mocking the Catholic church following the sex scandal that swept the nation a few years ago (something that I'm not making light of, btw), or Judaism, or another religion.

Except that there is not much of a paralell, because there is a difference between criticizing a religion and blaspheming it's central figure. The thing that was objectionable about the cartoons was that they not only showed images of the prophet Mohammed (in and of itself objectionable to Muslims) but that they made a mockery of him (bombs in his turban and so forth). While the Catholic Church was roundly criticized for the sex scandal, I don't recall any images of Jesus himself raping little boys. That might have really got some christians going. Islam as a religion is criticized in Western papers daily without sparking riots. It was the images of Mohammed that got people's goat, so to speak.

Intangelon

28-12-2007, 11:54

I think folks who write songs like this:

Soldiers of Christ -- Jill Sobule

Our lord loves the family, our lord loves the saved
Our lord love the unborn babies and the NRA
Our lord hates the liberals, the faggots and their friends
We're soldiers of Christ and we're here to defend

The way it used to be
The way it ought to be
The way it's gonna be again

In the days of Cain and Abel
In the days of crusades
In the days of inquisitions
They made the damned behave
Before emancipation
Before Roe & Wade
Before they taught little children
That they evolved from apes

The way it used to be
The way it ought to be
The way it's gonna be again
When we're in heaven you'll be sorry then

Our lord loves the sinner as long as he don't sin
He knows the thoughts you're thinking
He knows with whom you've been
And out lord loves this country, he's with you at the polls
He knows the lever that you pull
He's keeping track of souls

The way it used to be
The way it ought to be
The way it's gonna be again
When we're in heaven you'll be sorry
When we're in heaven you'll be sorry
When we're in heaven you'll be sorry then!

...have got a valid point when worrying about the potential for theocracy when mob mentality meets fundamentalist pandering. It doesn't matter to me whether the sign under which it happens is a cross or a star & crescent.

United Beleriand

28-12-2007, 12:13

Unfortunately, Islam's practices (I'd have to say no on the teachings) is also based on the culture of the Arabs,... which (IMO) is incompatible with the rest of the world.What a rubbish. Without the Arabs Europe would still be in the middle ages. It were the contacts with the Arab world that triggered the Renaissance 'movement'.

BackwoodsSquatches

28-12-2007, 12:25

I wanna know two things:

Why is it that since the 80's, America has produced douchebag leader after another.
Jimmy Carter's effectiveness as president aside, he's the last American President that wasnt a total douchebag.

Period.

Now, since 2000, we've had one douchebag after another as candidates to elect for the most important position in the Western World. This time we have the choices of:

An Oligarchy.
A Rookie.
An Ex Tort Lawyer.

and those are just the Dems.

On the Rep side:

A twice divorced pro choice catholic whos best qualification is that he didnt panic during a crisis, and hasnt let us forget it. 9/11!!ONE1.

A religious leader. (church and state, what?)

A priveledged son of a CEO, whos too much christian for you to handle!

and a guy who USED to sound credible, until he decided to roll over and beg for the White House, and now is pretty much a douche.

THIS is our state of affairs. THIS is what we as a nation have come to.

The second thing I wanna know is:

WHY arent we pissed?

Intangelon

28-12-2007, 12:28

I wanna know two things:

Why is it that since the 80's, America has produced douchebag leader after another.
Jimmy Carter's effectiveness as president aside, he's the last American President that was a total douchebag.

Period.

Now, since 2000, we've had one douchebag after another as candidates to elect for the most important position in the Western World. This time we have the choices of:

An Oligarchy.
A Rookie.
An Ex Tort Lawyer.

and those are just the Dems.

On the Rep side:

A twice divorced pro choice catholic whos best qualification is that he didnt panic during a crisis, and hasnt let us forget it. 9/11!!ONE1.

A religious leader. (church and state, what?)

A priveledged son of a CEO, whos too much christian for you to handle!

and a guy who USED to sound credible, until he decided to roll over and beg for the White House, and now is pretty much a douche.

THIS is our state of affairs. THIS is what we as a nation have come to.

The second thing I wanna know is:

WHY arent we pissed?

Hear, hear!

Or, in the words of Lewis Black: "If this is evolution in terms of Presidential candidates, in twelve years, we're gonna be voting for plants."

Intangelon

28-12-2007, 12:29

What a rubbish. Without the Arabs Europe would still be in the middle ages. It were the contacts with the Arab world that triggered the Renaissance 'movement'.

Absolutely true.

And Arab progress since then?

BackwoodsSquatches

28-12-2007, 12:31

Hear, hear!

Or, in the words of Lewis Black: "If this is evolution in terms of Presidential candidates, in twelve years, we're gonna be voting for plants."

Durrrrr....Ficas/Hibuscus 20!!!

Neu Leonstein

28-12-2007, 12:37

A lot of it has to do with dictatorial politicians using Islam to add legitimacy to their own rule. In Pakistan, that is approximately 100% of the problem.

Khadgar

28-12-2007, 12:47

http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/images/ChristianHelp.gif

Neu Leonstein

28-12-2007, 12:57

And Arab progress since then?
Well, basically the Ottoman Empire took over, which was an ultra-conservative and very oppressive state. When they could, they used religion to keep themselves in power.

But compared to the more liberal and progressive neighbours in the west they fell behind, and that left deep scars in many Muslims' histories, especially when the empire was then carved up and turned into colonies. So you've got these places where hurt pride is the order of the day, and dictatorships taking them over.

There was Pan-Arabism for a while, but that was never gonna take off, especially with Israel refusing to roll over. So political Islam was the major unifying force to draw upon. Basically the dictatorships tried to use Islam to control the masses, and at the same time the only opposition could develop within the Islamic community, since any secular force was immediately crushed.

None of these parties had any interest in moderate, progressive forms of Islam. They needed control and collective anger, and those were the directions they pursued.

United Beleriand

28-12-2007, 13:08

Absolutely true.

And Arab progress since then?Turkish rule, British rule, foreign money rule.

Soviet Haaregrad

28-12-2007, 13:43

What a rubbish. Without the Arabs Europe would still be in the middle ages. It were the contacts with the Arab world that triggered the Renaissance 'movement'.

And it was contact with Europeans that made Arabs so pissed off and xenophobic. ;) And they were right too, just look what happened to the rest of the world when they met Europeans.

Vandal-Unknown

28-12-2007, 14:31

What a rubbish. Without the Arabs Europe would still be in the middle ages. It were the contacts with the Arab world that triggered the Renaissance 'movement'.

Yes, indeed, but no need to point that out loud.

Vandal-Unknown

28-12-2007, 14:36

Well that's a bit racist.

Racist? Me? :D

Well, if it were compatible there'd be more harems in the world, wouldn't it? Jokes aside, how come cultural compatibility comes off as racist?

United Beleriand

28-12-2007, 14:37

And it was contact with Europeans that made Arabs so pissed off and xenophobic. ;) And they were right too, just look what happened to the rest of the world when they met Europeans.fourhundredsomething years later, yes.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 14:58

To the OP:

You make a legitimate argument, but you've come to the wrong place to have it aired. NSG is populated mostly be EXACTLY the mentality you're pointing out.

Anyone who disputes me on that is a damn liar, or doesn't post much on these boards. People on here will be all over you like a bad rash if you criticize Islam, but they will not hesitate, and in fact will pat each other on the back, for disparaging Jesus Christ. Criticize THEM for it, and you're nothing but a freedom of speech hating control freak.

Unless you can do a one to one on publications that actively didn't show the comic (not just didn't show, but as policy didn't) I'm going to call bullshit. We eggshell around Christians all the damn time. It wasn't until recently when the tide was too much to stand that anyone pushed back at them at all.

See the high standard of proof? Much weaker evidence is worhipped here when it makes Christianity look bad.

Next we have Neo Art, the current NSG darling, who thinks isolated incidents somehow add up to obscure the point:

Are you fucking shitting me?

We live in a society where a mormon presidential candidate has his qualifications questioned over whether he's "christian enough" to be president.

Only by other Christians who don't like Mormons to begin with. What did you expect from the religious Right? This proves absolutely nothing.

We live in a society where Hindu shopkeepers were savagely beaten after 9/11 by folks who thought they looked muslim

How long ago? Everybody knows there was a brief wave of anti-Muslim violence after 9/11.

We live in a society where people who are best selling authors publically state that she believes that the population of Afghanistan should be forceably converted to christianity.

Note the lack of detail here. I'm g onna take a stab at a guess and theorize that he's referring to Ann Coulter, and I am not gonna take his word for it unless and until I read that for myself.

We live in a society where, after the first muslim was elected to congress, people protested over the fact he refused to be sworn in on a bible.

Again, the only people who complained about that are members of the Christian religious right, who are exactly the people you'd EXPECT to complain about it.

We live in a society where someone opens fucking pig racing next to a mosque because he doesn't want it in his neighborhood.

The act of an individual. Interesting how NA is trying to make this seem commonplace.

We live in a society where the christian right has managed to get "under god" in our pledge, "in god we trust" on our money, and intelligent design in our classroom.

To the first, that's been around for a LONG time, and is a holdover from a time when people didn't wet their pants over Christianity like they do now. To the second, that's hardly a wave of religious fervor sweeping the nation.

So to the OP: You're right, and Neo Art proved it for you.

Except that there is not much of a paralell, because there is a difference between criticizing a religion and blaspheming it's central figure. The thing that was objectionable about the cartoons was that they not only showed images of the prophet Mohammed (in and of itself objectionable to Muslims) but that they made a mockery of him (bombs in his turban and so forth). While the Catholic Church was roundly criticized for the sex scandal, I don't recall any images of Jesus himself raping little boys. That might have really got some christians going. Islam as a religion is criticized in Western papers daily without sparking riots. It was the images of Mohammed that got people's goat, so to speak.

There is a parallel, because Jesus Christ is a favorite target for people who want to bust on Christianity.

South Park, as one example, doesn't hesitate, do they? And they've also lampooned Moses, Joseph Smith, and a few others. Have you seen them lampoon Mohammed?

Hint: The answer is "no."

What a rubbish. Without the Arabs Europe would still be in the middle ages. It were the contacts with the Arab world that triggered the Renaissance 'movement'.

I call bullshit on that.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/images/ChristianHelp.gif

I love it when people whip this picture out. It's like, no need to even think about it. What a good sheep you are.

Khadgar

28-12-2007, 15:15

I call bullshit on that.That's okay, US schools tend to gloss over minutiae like European History.

I love it when people whip this picture out. It's like, no need to even think about it. What a good sheep you are.You dispute it's accuracy? Because I suspect it's overstating the Jewish/other/non-religious section of the pie.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 15:19

That's okay, US schools tend to gloss over minutiae like European History.

I prefer my history unfiltered. I don't get it from schools.

You dispute it's accuracy? Because I suspect it's overstating the Jewish/other/non-religious section of the pie.

I suggest that it fails to reflect reality in a qualitative sense. It's misleading and not by accident.

Khadgar

28-12-2007, 15:30

I prefer my history unfiltered. I don't get it from schools. I kind of figured you didn't get it from any authoritative source.

I suggest that it fails to reflect reality in a qualitative sense. It's misleading and not by accident.

Here (http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/religionchart.htm). According to that Christians make up 95.3% of the US. I figured that image under-represented them.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 15:39

I kind of figured you didn't get it from any authoritative source.

How can I take this seriously? You criticize my statement based on your inaccurate assumption that I got it from the American school system, and when I indicate that I did not, you change your position and criticize me for NOT getting it from an American school. At no point did you ask what my source was (I think I know why).

Why don't you go have a cup of coffee, wake up, and then come on back.

Here (http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/religionchart.htm). According to that Christians make up 95.3% of the US. I figured that image under-represented them.

Please consult a dictionary for the definition of the term 'qualitative.'

Khadgar

28-12-2007, 15:47

How can I take this seriously? You criticize my statement based on your inaccurate assumption that I got it from the American school system, and when I indicate that I did not, you change your position and criticize me for NOT getting it from an American school. At no point did you ask what my source was (I think I know why). Tell me, this persecution complex, is it a new thing or a life long issue? Where do you get your information from? I know it's not an authoritative source or you wouldn't say such peculiar and revisionist history things as you say. Now don't assume that I consider the US school systems particularly useful source, like I said they gloss over it. Since they aren't your source as you say then you're not getting your information from anyone with authority or very likely credentials. Hell you're about a half step away from a flat earther on most of your views. I will say this for the US schools, they gloss over European history, but what they mention is usually fairly accurate.

Please consult a dictionary for the definition of the term 'qualitative.'

I'm aware of what the word means. You're probably not though. That's okay. You mean to say that the image is misleading, and it is, it understates the "oppressed" in their majority. Now you can bitch and moan that reality has a liberal bias all you like.

Ashmoria

28-12-2007, 15:48

Newer Burmecia

28-12-2007, 15:50

this is america. everything gets dissed.
Except the forum's hosted in the UK.;)

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 15:56

Tell me, this persecution complex, is it a new thing or a life long issue? Where do you get your information from? I know it's not an authoritative source or you wouldn't say such peculiar and revisionist history things as you say. Now don't assume that I consider the US school systems particularly useful source, like I said they gloss over it. Since they aren't your source as you say then you're not getting your information from anyone with authority or very likely credentials. Hell you're about a half step away from a flat earther on most of your views. I will say this for the US schools, they gloss over European history, but what they mention is usually fairly accurate.

So... because I disagree with you, my history is revisionist. You still haven't asked for a source. (I'm not volunteering it because I want to see just how far you'll carry this farce.)

I'm aware of what the word means. You're probably not though. That's okay. You mean to say that the image is misleading, and it is, it understates the "oppressed" in their majority. Now you can bitch and moan that reality has a liberal bias all you like.

I don't think you are. WHen I first said it you responded with another numbers argument. When I say 'qualitatively misleading' I'm not refering to the numbers themselves or their accuracy. If I were, that would be a quantitative argument.

My point is, that illustration is obviosuly meant to imply 1)That all Christians are both homogenous and oppressive toward other hroups and 2)That all Christians are claiming oppression by others.

Both of which are false, but qualitatively claimed whenever someone used that chart in this forum.

Ashmoria

28-12-2007, 16:00

Except the forum's hosted in the UK.;)

OUCH

well ok THIS is the uk

and uh..

well...

FINE!

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 16:03

this is a debate site so yeah, religion gets debated.
...

NSG is not the country at large and the OP is still wrong. you can find terrible things said about islam pretty much any day of the week on your radio. michael savage does it on a regular basis. i havent heard glenn beck in a couple of years but ive heard him recommend the extermination of all moslems. yeah, ann coulter did say that moslems should be forcibly converted, does she not count now? i dont wallow in the rantings of the right so im sure that there are far more people out there willing to say bad things about islam than i am aware of.

this is america. everything gets dissed.

You make good points, but I'm sticking to my guns on this because, using South Park again as an example, the culture at large is much more comfortable picking on Christianity than on Islam.

Mind you, I personally don't take it personally. I just get annoyed at hypocrisy. If people want to insult Christianity then so be it. I know who'll get the last laugh in the end. ;)

Khadgar

28-12-2007, 16:07

So... because I disagree with you, my history is revisionist. You still haven't asked for a source. (I'm not volunteering it because I want to see just how far you'll carry this farce.)Actually I did, you're just not reading what I write, which makes me wonder why I continue. Comedy mostly.

I don't think you are. WHen I first said it you responded with another numbers argument. When I say 'qualitatively misleading' I'm not refering to the numbers themselves or their accuracy. If I were, that would be a quantitative argument.

My point is, that illustration is obviosuly meant to imply 1)That all Christians are both homogenous and oppressive toward other hroups and 2)That all Christians are claiming oppression by others.

Both of which are false, but qualitatively claimed whenever someone used that chart in this forum.

qual·i·ta·tive
adj.
Of, relating to, or concerning quality.
[Middle English, producing a primary quality, from Medieval Latin qulittvus, from Late Latin, qualitative, from Latin qulits, qulitt-, quality; see quality.]

In a numbers argument the only quality of relevance is numbers. Feel free to cry now about how I'm being obtuse or unfair. Now you can say Christians aren't a homogeneous group but when you're pissing and moaning about other religions then it's religion only that's considered. Now if you want to debate with some nuance (which is likely beyond your ilk) then you can start being considered something other than the overwhelming Christian majority that you belong to.

Newer Burmecia

28-12-2007, 16:11

OUCH

well ok THIS is the uk

and uh..

well...

FINE!
Don't worry. Instead of dissing things, you can have a drive by argument (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=11581307).

Smunkeeville

28-12-2007, 16:16

you need to start listening to the michael savage show on the radio. he says such ugly things about islam on a regular basis that it will warm the cockles of your heart. never again will you think that dissing islam is discouraged in this country.

surely you should start him out on Glen Beck.......

Ashmoria

28-12-2007, 16:25

You make good points, but I'm sticking to my guns on this because, using South Park again as an example, the culture at large is much more comfortable picking on Christianity than on Islam.

Mind you, I personally don't take it personally. I just get annoyed at hypocrisy. If people want to insult Christianity then so be it. I know who'll get the last laugh in the end. ;)

i think that its because christianity is familiar. its "us". islam isnt mainstream american (or UK) yet so our criticisms of it are pretty much limited to the political.

i personally couldnt come up with an argument against the legitimacy of islam because i know next to nothing about the issues that would be involved. when it comes to christianity, i know most of them.

which is going to be the more vigorous and interesting debate?

Ashmoria

28-12-2007, 16:32

surely you should start him out on Glen Beck.......

i dont get to hear glen beck any more. (like i ever wanted to) i heard him a few times a couple of years back and he was the most shockingly vile anti-islam radio host i had heard. he was worse than michael savage because savage has only a slight hold on sanity. i was kinda hoping that beck had clean up a bit since i heard him last.

Laerod

28-12-2007, 16:35

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 16:43

Actually I did, you're just not reading what I write, which makes me wonder why I continue. Comedy mostly.

I concede that I missed that line. My apologies.

But in fairness, It would be nice to see you concede that you made some false assumptions.

The answer is, I get my info from BOOKS. It's a lost art to many, I know but I simply read. Library books, books purchased from the bookstore, etc. I read from a variety of sources and a variety of subjects. My personal focus is European history, in fact. I generally prefer the Medieval and late Classical Period but I leave nothing out. (Generlaly my interest wanes after the Napoleonic Era).

qual·i·ta·tive
adj.
Of, relating to, or concerning quality.
[Middle English, producing a primary quality, from Medieval Latin qulittvus, from Late Latin, qualitative, from Latin qulits, qulitt-, quality; see quality.]

In a numbers argument the only quality of relevance is numbers. Feel free to cry now about how I'm being obtuse or unfair. Now you can say Christians aren't a homogeneous group but when you're pissing and moaning about other religions then it's religion only that's considered. Now if you want to debate with some nuance (which is likely beyond your ilk) then you can start being considered something other than the overwhelming Christian majority that you belong to.

That chart isn't just about numbers though, and you know it. Please don't pretend otherwise. (The text balloon is the most obvious sign.)

Christians aren't a homogenous group. Not only can it br broken down into any number of denominations (Some of which differ from one another VASTLY. Just compare Catholicism to the Jehova's Witnesses, or Southern Baptists to Mennonites). With in those denominations you have a wide variety of individuals whose individual opinions vary. Some Catholics are incredibly zealous, while others identify themselves as Catholic in name only, and otherwise live as if the Church didn't even exists.

But thank you for conceding that I, as a Mormon, belong to the Christian majority. :)

i think that its because christianity is familiar. its "us". islam isnt mainstream american (or UK) yet so our criticisms of it are pretty much limited to the political.

i personally couldnt come up with an argument against the legitimacy of islam because i know next to nothing about the issues that would be involved. when it comes to christianity, i know most of them.

which is going to be the more vigorous and interesting debate?

I'll concede that people are generally much less knowledgeable about Islam if you'll concede that they suddenly become experts on here when there's a perceived anti-Islamic bigot on here.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 16:43

What exactly is your definition of "asking for a source"?

See below.

Nobel Hobos

28-12-2007, 16:56

New Manvir

28-12-2007, 17:25

There is a parallel, because Jesus Christ is a favorite target for people who want to bust on Christianity.

South Park, as one example, doesn't hesitate, do they? And they've also lampooned Moses, Joseph Smith, and a few others. Have you seen them lampoon Mohammed?

Hint: The answer is "no."

South Park has made fun of Mohammed

Super Best Friends Episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends)
And the Cartoon Wars Episodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars)

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 17:37

Pardon me for using this post to jump into the conversation, even though none of it, obviously, was directed towards me. :p

I concede that I missed that line. My apologies.

But in fairness, It would be nice to see you concede that you made some false assumptions.
Except, of course, that he didn't, by my reading. He only responded to what you wrote, to the information you gave him. If that information was incorrect, incomplete or misleading, that is your fault, not his. He made no assumptions, by which I mean he leapt to no conclusions and/or added no data of his own to what you supplied. His remark about you not getting your information from an authoritative source was a thing called sarcasm. I read it as a challenge to you to provide your sources, not as a conclusion he had jumped to.

The answer is, I get my info from BOOKS. It's a lost art to many, I know but I simply read. Library books, books purchased from the bookstore, etc. I read from a variety of sources and a variety of subjects. My personal focus is European history, in fact. I generally prefer the Medieval and late Classical Period but I leave nothing out. (Generlaly my interest wanes after the Napoleonic Era).
I read The Pokey Little Puppy when I was a child, and just this month, I read three novels, one fantasy and two suspense thrillers. That information is just as beside the point as your statement above. I notice that you have still not provided sources, such as, say, the titles of some books from which you have gained the information on which you base your assertions. Unless I see titles that I can go and look up for myself, I really can't assume that books about European history in the Medieval and late Classical periods are going to tell you much at all about Islam, Christianity, or current prevailing attitudes towards Christianity in western societies today. Therefore, your claims to know what's really going on with people's attitudes towards Christianity cannot be supported by saying you read a book about the Middle Ages once't.

That chart isn't just about numbers though, and you know it. Please don't pretend otherwise. (The text balloon is the most obvious sign.)

Christians aren't a homogenous group. Not only can it br broken down into any number of denominations (Some of which differ from one another VASTLY. Just compare Catholicism to the Jehova's Witnesses, or Southern Baptists to Mennonites). With in those denominations you have a wide variety of individuals whose individual opinions vary. Some Catholics are incredibly zealous, while others identify themselves as Catholic in name only, and otherwise live as if the Church didn't even exists.

But thank you for conceding that I, as a Mormon, belong to the Christian majority. :)
Thank you for conceding that Christians, as a group composed of heterogeneous sub-groups, form the majority.

I'll concede that people are generally much less knowledgeable about Islam if you'll concede that they suddenly become experts on here when there's a perceived anti-Islamic bigot on here.
I, for one, will concede no such thing. In fact, I am personally offended by your suggestions that everyone here defends Islam but nobody defends Christianity. I have been on this forum for several years now, and I am consistently on record as defending all religious beliefs, even when they are opposed to my own. As one who follows a definite minority religion in the US, one that is a frequent target of religious bigotry (it's a form of paganism), I feel myself living in a nation that is openly hostile to my beliefs and, potentially, to my way of living. Also, due to the current political activism of fundamentalist religions in the US, I often find myself debating religion in the context of civil and political rights issues, thus casting me as an antagonist to, for instance, certain Christian views on matters such as abortion rights.

HOWEVER, as quick as I am to argue against anyone claiming the right to impose their religious views on me, I am equally quick to argue against anyone denigrating those religious views and/or the people who hold them. Aside from any question of religion, I believe absolutely in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and in the human rights they protect, which I personally extend to all people in the world, not just US citizens. I live by the principle of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If you don't believe me, just ask United Beleriand about the times I have attacked his attacks against Judeo-Christian beliefs. I remind you that I attack his arguments even though I couldn't give less of a crap about the validity of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Valuing the beliefs is not the point. Rather, the point is to value the right of people to hold their beliefs.

Yes, I often jump in and defend Islam and Muslims against unwarranted or unfair attacks by bigots. When such attacks are launched against Christians, I often jump in then, too, in defense of Christianity. At the same time, I will not hesitate to criticize both Islam and Christianity for their failings and transgressions. But I maintain that there is a difference between criticism and a bigoted attack. When it's a matter of bigoted attacks, I will be there defending the target. When it's a matter of honest criticism, I will be there too, likely handing out the critiques. Oh, and both religions can go fuck themselves when it comes to their radical members trying to impose their belief systems onto me. ;)

Finally, for the record, I would like to mention that precious few Christian or Muslim NSGers have ever come to the defense of my religion on the occasions it has been attacked. I'm not complaining. Just saying.

So don't sit there, snug in your comfy majority, and bitch about how nobody has your back. I have your back. I'm not even your friend, but I've got your back. I don't expect you to have mine, but I've got yours.

Nobel Hobos

28-12-2007, 17:44

Pardon me for using this post to jump into the conversation, even though none of it, obviously, was directed towards me. :p

*snip*

tl; dnr.

No, really. I'll read it ... tomorrow.

There is such a thing as being Too Good. You play it to The Gods.

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 17:47

Are you fucking shitting me?

1) We live in a society where a mormon presidential candidate has his qualifications questioned over whether he's "christian enough" to be president.

2) We live in a society where Hindu shopkeepers were savagely beaten after 9/11 by folks who thought they looked muslim

3) We live in a society where people who are best selling authors publically state that she believes that the population of Afghanistan should be forceably converted to christianity.

4) We live in a society where, after the first muslim was elected to congress, people protested over the fact he refused to be sworn in on a bible.

5) We live in a society where someone opens fucking pig racing next to a mosque because he doesn't want it in his neighborhood.

6) We live in a society where the christian right has managed to get "under god" in our pledge, "in god we trust" on our money, and intelligent design in our classroom.

Where the hell do YOU live?

1) This society doesn't have a problem with Romney because he isn't Christian enough; this society has a problem with Romney because he is a member of a glorified cult which, until 1970, banned African Americans from joining because they "weren't human." Um, "Magic Glasses"? Hello? Forget him being Christian enough, I don't want a president who's gullible enough to believe that crap.

2) We live in a society where, yes, stupid people live. I'm pretty sure that stupid, ignorant people live in every society, and it would be foolish of you to think that these idiots didn't receive punishment for their actions. To be frank, the people who beat an innocent Hindu deserve the same treatment.

3) We live in a society that is threatened everyday by radical Muslims who believe that at the end of the day, even the rocks will cry out and say "O believer, there is a Jew behind me," and that same believer will be expected to then kill the Jew. I mean, this is coming from the Koran, for God's sake. Even non-radical Muslims have to admit it's there, but the radicals don't have the common sense to take a step back and say "wait a minute, something is wrong here." I mean, if I had to take my pick of what religion I would want forced upon me (an idea that scares me greatly), I wouldn't be eager to choose the one that predicates the death of everyone who isn't someone of my religion. That's just me, though.

4) Again, stupidity on the part of the protesters. It would make more sense to me to have him sworn in on the religious book of his choosing. That way, he might actually mean it when he's being sworn in.

5) We live in a society that has it's share of racists, bigots, and morons of all colors, shapes, and sizes. A person with an IQ above 8 should know that a mosque, 9 times out of 10, is a place of worship and peaceful prayer, not some sanctuary for violence. And even in that 1 time out of 10 when a mosque serves as a breeding ground for these sorts of extremists, it's probably located overseas in a country like Iran.

6) We live in a society where I suppose the founders of our country were members of the eeeevillllll Christian right. I mean, Jefferson was just one of those stupid neo-Conservatives who was trying to force God down our throats! (If you don't believe me, how about you check out one of his lesser known works (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/uc06330.jpg)- I think I see at least two references to God in the first two paragraphs alone. I guess, based on those references to God, we should just discount the validity of the whole document, or at the very least have it removed from our public schools.)

These issues aside, I don't think you get my point. Here's (http://newsbusters.org/media/Jesus%20is%20that%20you2.jpg)
a cover of Rolling Stone featuring Kanye West (who happens to be one of my favorite musical artists). You mean to tell me, in all honesty, that no one would have a problem with it if Kanye were dressed up as Mohammed? Please.

Now where's my cheesecake? :P

Dempublicents1

28-12-2007, 17:49

Dundee-Fienn

28-12-2007, 17:54

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 17:58

I think you've just proved the point you're answering

Well yeah, if the original point was "Americans don't want a president who belongs to a cult." Turns out, it wasn't. Being a Mormon isn't the same thing as being a Protestant; IMO it's in the category of Scientology. I'd vote for an Atheist if his/her views were in line with mine.

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 18:00

You um...you kinda just proved my point there didn't ya?

No, I basically just proved that you're stringing together a bunch of isolated incidents and you're trying to make them sound like a sweeping epidemic.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 18:01

tl; dnr.

No, really. I'll read it ... tomorrow.

There is such a thing as being Too Good. You play it to The Gods.

Haha, no, dear, I just enjoy typing. ;)

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 18:01

You're in a minority.

Can't be, I'm a Christian ;)

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 18:01

1) This society doesn't have a problem with Romney because he isn't Christian enough; this society has a problem with Romney because he is a member of a glorified cult which, until 1970, banned African Americans from joining because they "weren't human." Um, "Magic Glasses"? Hello? Forget him being Christian enough, I don't want a president who's gullible enough to believe that crap.

2) We live in a society where, yes, stupid people live. I'm pretty sure that stupid, ignorant people live in every society, and it would be foolish of you to think that these idiots didn't receive punishment for their actions. To be frank, the people who beat an innocent Hindu deserve the same treatment.

3) We live in a society that is threatened everyday by radical Muslims who believe that at the end of the day, even the rocks will cry out and say "O believer, there is a Jew behind me," and that same believer will be expected to then kill the Jew. I mean, this is coming from the Koran, for God's sake. Even non-radical Muslims have to admit it's there, but the radicals don't have the common sense to take a step back and say "wait a minute, something is wrong here." I mean, if I had to take my pick of what religion I would want forced upon me (an idea that scares me greatly), I wouldn't be eager to choose the one that predicates the death of everyone who isn't someone of my religion. That's just me, though.

4) Again, stupidity on the part of the protesters. It would make more sense to me to have him sworn in on the religious book of his choosing. That way, he might actually mean it when he's being sworn in.

5) We live in a society that has it's share of racists, bigots, and morons of all colors, shapes, and sizes. A person with an IQ above 8 should know that a mosque, 9 times out of 10, is a place of worship and peaceful prayer, not some sanctuary for violence. And even in that 1 time out of 10 when a mosque serves as a breeding ground for these sorts of extremists, it's probably located overseas in a country like Iran.

6) We live in a society where I suppose the founders of our country were members of the eeeevillllll Christian right. I mean, Jefferson was just one of those stupid neo-Conservatives who was trying to force God down our throats! (If you don't believe me, how about you check out one of his lesser known works (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/uc06330.jpg)- I think I see at least two references to God in the first two paragraphs alone. I guess, based on those references to God, we should just discount the validity of the whole document, or at the very least have it removed from our public schools.)

You um...you kinda just proved my point there didn't ya? Especially since you make not one, but two very serious historical errors in your post, it's not surprising that one is willing to lie, distort, and twist facts to make your point.

your typical idiot christian bigot. It's remarkably telling that you try to excuse bad behavior on the part of christians by calling them "idiots", but lay the blame on the actions of some muslims on the muslim faith.

Which is it?

Newer Burmecia

28-12-2007, 18:02

I'd vote for an Atheist if his/her views were in line with mine.
You're in a minority.

Ashmoria

28-12-2007, 18:06

These issues aside, I don't think you get my point. Here's (http://newsbusters.org/media/Jesus%20is%20that%20you2.jpg)
a cover of Rolling Stone featuring Kanye West (who happens to be one of my favorite musical artists). You mean to tell me, in all honesty, that no one would have a problem with it if Kanye were dressed up as Mohammed? Please.

Now where's my cheesecake? :P

as i recall, there were plenty of people pissed at that cover.

maybe the same people would have been pissed if he had protrayed mohammed. there is no way to know since it didnt happen.

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 18:08

You um...you kinda just proved my point there didn't ya? Especially since you make not one, but two very serious historical errors in your post, it's not surprising that one is willing to lie, distort, and twist facts to make your point.

your typical idiot christian bigot. It's remarkably telling that you try to excuse bad behavior on the part of christians by calling them "idiots", but lay the blame on the actions of some muslims on the muslim faith.

Which is it?

Nice edit job there. If you didn't understand from my original post, which could be quite possible, I think that Muslim extremists are just as bigoted and racist as the KKK, Black Panthers, or any other kind of one-race-over-all-the-others group.

By the way, 1) What facts did I twist/distort? and 2) I'm curious to hear your explanation of whether or not Thomas Jefferson was a member of the Christian right.

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 18:09

No, I basically just proved that you're stringing together a bunch of isolated incidents and you're trying to make them sound like a sweeping epidemic.

I had expected you had an ounce of intellect in you and were actually capable of debating the topic.

I see now that I seriously misjudged you, and you are neither capable, nor willing to actually discuss your point, and this little "I just have to get this off my chest!" bigoted rant of your is just merely par for the course. A borderline racist winge on muslims coupled with a historically blind, willfully ignorant, christian apologist. It's always fools, idiots, cult members and not REAL christians who do it, but oh those damned muslims!

boooooring. You are neither clever nor unique kid, we've seen this shit before. It's nothing new, it's nothing smart, and you're not the clever little flower for thinking it up.

You're just another bigot.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 18:13

Well yeah, if the original point was "Americans don't want a president who belongs to a cult." Turns out, it wasn't. Being a Mormon isn't the same thing as being a Protestant; IMO it's in the category of Scientology. I'd vote for an Atheist if his/her views were in line with mine.

The original point was that some Americans question Romney's fitness to be president out of bigotry against his religion. Your insulting remarks about his religion support that original assertion.

There are plenty of things that, in my opinion, should disqualify Romney for the presidency -- primarily his overwhelming dishonesty -- but his Mormonism is not one of them, nor should it be in a nation whose Constitution disallows religious litmus tests for holding public office.

You say it is bad if some people feel comfortable attacking and insulting Christianity rather than Islam, yet you yourself feel perfectly comfortable attacking and insulting Mormonism. I call hypocrisy. You could have argued that it is bad to attack/insult religions, and therefore, people who would not attack/insult Islam because it would be rude, should not be attacking Christianity because that's rude too. (And if you really thought that, you would have kept your mouth shut about Mormonism.) Instead, you seem to be complaining that some people attack/insult Christianity when they should instead be attacking Islam. Your remarks about Mormonism show that you have no problem with attacking/insulting other people's beliefs, so just what is your maladjustment then? Is it just that you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 18:16

Nice edit job there. If you didn't understand from my original post, which could be quite possible, I think that Muslim extremists are just as bigoted and racist as the KKK, Black Panthers, or any other kind of one-race-over-all-the-others group.

You mean extremists....*gasp* act extreme? Just like OTHER extremists? What a fucking revelation there chief. So what the fuck does muslim have to do with it?

By the way, 1) What facts did I twist/distort? and 2) I'm curious to hear your explanation of whether or not Thomas Jefferson was a member of the Christian right.

1) what, exactly, do you consider a "loooooong time" because I know when you're young the 50s can seem like this ancient time, but to be honest, it wasn't all that long ago

2) I suggest you check here (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm). Jefferson was clearly and almost undisputably (except by the christian right trying to rewrite history) a deist, not a christian. Additionally, he would also not be considered any member of the "right" because, in addition to writing the declaration of independance (which, as you note, mentions god, not christ) he also coined the phrase "wall of seperation"

Pan-Arab Barronia

28-12-2007, 18:16

The (in)famous cartoon, for example, which had Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head, wasn't included in many magazines and other publications in the west because the editors of these publications were afraid they would offend someone.

I can't remember who said it, but a quote I read (in The God Delusion, no less) made the point that it was probably not shown in the UK because the newspapers more didn't want to have their windows broken than they didn't want to offend anyone.

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 18:18

The original point was that some Americans question Romney's fitness to be president out of bigotry against his religion. Your insulting remarks about his religion support that original assertion.

There are plenty of things that, in my opinion, should disqualify Romney for the presidency -- primarily his overwhelming dishonesty -- but his Mormonism is not one of them, nor should it be in a nation whose Constitution disallows religious litmus tests for holding public office.

You say it is bad if some people feel comfortable attacking and insulting Christianity rather than Islam, yet you yourself feel perfectly comfortable attacking and insulting Mormonism. I call hypocrisy. You could have argued that it is bad to attack/insult religions, and therefore, people who would not attack/insult Islam because it would be rude, should not be attacking Christianity because that's rude too. (And if you really thought that, you would have kept your mouth shut about Mormonism.) Instead, you seem to be complaining that some people attack/insult Christianity when they should instead be attacking Islam. Your remarks about Mormonism show that you have no problem with attacking/insulting other people's beliefs, so just what is your maladjustment then? Is it just that you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

awww, did you have to go and point it out? It's far more amusing to watch them try and fail to figure it out.

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 18:18

I had expected you had an ounce of intellect in you and were actually capable of debating the topic.

I see now that I seriously misjudged you, and you are neither capable, nor willing to actually discuss your point, and this little "I just have to get this off my chest!" bigoted rant of your is just merely par for the course. A borderline racist winge on muslims coupled with a historically blind, willfully ignorant, christian apologist. It's always fools, idiots, cult members and not REAL christians who do it, but oh those damned muslims!

boooooring. You are neither clever nor unique kid, we've seen this shit before. It's nothing new, it's nothing smart, and you're not the clever little flower for thinking it up.

You're just another bigot.

Thank you for showing the whole board that you are no more capable of debating this topic than you believe me to be. You've resorted to the classic "I lose, so I'll just insult him."

The original point was that some Americans question Romney's fitness to be president out of bigotry against his religion. Your insulting remarks about his religion support that original assertion.

There are plenty of things that, in my opinion, should disqualify Romney for the presidency -- primarily his overwhelming dishonesty -- but his Mormonism is not one of them, nor should it be in a nation whose Constitution disallows religious litmus tests for holding public office.

You say it is bad if some people feel comfortable attacking and insulting Christianity rather than Islam, yet you yourself feel perfectly comfortable attacking and insulting Mormonism. I call hypocrisy. You could have argued that it is bad to attack/insult religions, and therefore, people who would not attack/insult Islam because it would be rude, should not be attacking Christianity because that's rude too. (And if you really thought that, you would have kept your mouth shut about Mormonism.) Instead, you seem to be complaining that some people attack/insult Christianity when they should instead be attacking Islam. Your remarks about Mormonism show that you have no problem with attacking/insulting other people's beliefs, so just what is your maladjustment then? Is it just that you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

Oh no, I can take it just as well as I can dish it out. The whole point of my original post was to show that a minority of the Muslim population (you know, think Al-Qaeda) can't take it like the rest of the world can.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 18:19

awww, did you have to go and point it out? It's far more amusing to watch them try and fail to figure it out.

What makes you think I spoiled that fun? ;) :p

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 18:22

I can't remember who said it, but a quote I read (in The God Delusion, no less) made the point that it was probably not shown in the UK because the newspapers more didn't want to have their windows broken than they didn't want to offend anyone.

Well, that makes sense for UK newspapers. When was the last time they didn't go out of their way to offend people? No, I'm sure that decision came from their insurance adjusters, not their editors. ;)

Wawavia

28-12-2007, 18:24

You mean extremists....*gasp* act extreme? Just like OTHER extremists? What a fucking revelation there chief. So what the fuck does muslim have to do with it?

Excuse me, but stop putting words in my mouth. It's not their religion that I have a problem with, it's their interpretation of it. Just like I have a problem with people who interpret the Creation story literally, I have a problem with radicals who take it upon themselves to "carry out God's work" and wipe the planet of infidels, which, according to their standards, you might be.

1) what, exactly, do you consider a "loooooong time" because I know when you're young the 50s can seem like this ancient time, but to be honest, it wasn't all that long ago

Right. And?

2) I suggest you check here (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm). Jefferson was clearly and almost undisputably (except by the christian right trying to rewrite history) a deist, not a christian.

So therefor you have no problem with "In God we Trust" on money and a reference to His name in the Pledge of Allegiance? I mean, what if I'm just a deist, not a member of a particular religion?

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 18:26

Thank you for showing the whole board that you are no more capable of debating this topic than you believe me to be. You've resorted to the classic "I lose, so I'll just insult him."

No, I insult you because you're not worth much else. You haven't "won" anything, you haven't proven anything. You make your same little "oh those ebil moslims!" post while at the same time, bending over backward to be the good little christian apologist trying to lie and distort fact to suit your purpose.

If you had something worthy of debate, I'd debate it. I won't hold my breath

Oh no, I can take it just as well as I can dish it out. The whole point of my original post was to show that a minority of the Muslim population (you know, think Al-Qaeda) can't take it like the rest of the world can.

Oh yes, because a christian extremist would never do something like...I dunno...murder a doctor for performing a legal procedure, would he?

Gauthier

28-12-2007, 18:33

Looks like someone's trying to establish his or her NSG career by being the New Kimchi.

And failing miserably so far.

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 18:36

Excuse me, but stop putting words in my mouth. It's not their religion that I have a problem with, it's their interpretation of it. Just like I have a problem with people who interpret the Creation story literally, I have a problem with radicals who take it upon themselves to "carry out God's work" and wipe the planet of infidels, which, according to their standards, you might be.

Except you chose to place tis little rant on muslims, nobody else.

Right. And?

OK, let's try to make this as easy as possible. When do you think "under god" was added to the pledge?

So therefor you have no problem with "In God we Trust" on money and a reference to His name in the Pledge of Allegiance? I mean, what if I'm just a deist, not a member of a particular religion?

Wow, what an idiotic statement. How does me disproving your little "jefferson was a christian claim!" be showing he was a deist reach this conclusion?

Seriously, how does "you are wrong, jefferson was not a christian" become "it's ok to put god in the pledge?" Do you actually think first before you type? Do you take that moment to consider if your comments make any actual sense?

It's a skill people learn as they grow up, to take that minute and actually think "does this actually make sense, or will I sound like an idiot?" Because really, you just did the logical equivalent of "this boulder is granite so I want some pudding"

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 18:36

Except, of course, that he didn't, by my reading.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

I read The Pokey Little Puppy when I was a child, ...Therefore, your claims to know what's really going on with people's attitudes towards Christianity cannot be supported by saying you read a book about the Middle Ages once't.

That's not what I said. I said I got my info from books, generally, then I went on to (conversationally) point out some of my specific interests. They were irrelevant but hey sometimes I get long-winded.

As for the exact details of where I read about the origins of the Rennaisance, I don't carry my personal library around with me wherever I go. You'll have to forgive me.

Thank you for conceding that Christians, as a group composed of heterogeneous sub-groups, form the majority.

Of course they form the majority. I never disputed the numbers, I only questioned their meaning.

I, for one, will concede no such thing. In fact, I am personally offended by your suggestions that everyone here defends Islam but nobody defends Christianity...

I mean no offense, but it is generally the case that the only people defending Christians are Christians, but almost everybody will defend Islam if it appears to be under criticism. (Yes, there are always a couple of exceptions.) Remember Deep Kimchi? Everybody remembers him as an Islamophobe but how many posters who have high post counts around here and who won't hesitate to disparage Christianity have a label like that? I don't even know what the corresponding label is. Christianophobe? And it's not just on political issues like abortion.

I mean, don't you find that telling?

HOWEVER, as quick as I am to argue against anyone claiming the right to impose their religious views on me, I am equally quick to argue against anyone denigrating those religious views and/or the people who hold them.

That's a good thing. I appreciate that, but you don't exactly represent the majority in that department.

Finally, for the record, I would like to mention that precious few Christian or Muslim NSGers have ever come to the defense of my religion on the occasions it has been attacked. I'm not complaining. Just saying.

What religion might that be? (If you don't mind my asking)

So don't sit there, snug in your comfy majority, and bitch about how nobody has your back. I have your back. I'm not even your friend, but I've got your back. I don't expect you to have mine, but I've got yours.

I'll make a point to watch for you the next time Christianity and/or Mormonism is getting slammed.

And I'll have your back too, when it comes to it.

1) This society doesn't have a problem with Romney because he isn't Christian enough; this society has a problem with Romney because he is a member of a glorified cult which, until 1970, banned African Americans from joining because they "weren't human." Um, "Magic Glasses"? Hello? Forget him being Christian enough, I don't want a president who's gullible enough to believe that crap.

I respected you until this post. I guess you're a religious bigot after all.

...
You're just another bigot.

And dammit now I find myself in agreement with Neo Art. :p

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 18:44

<snip>

Oh no, I can take it just as well as I can dish it out. The whole point of my original post was to show that a minority of the Muslim population (you know, think Al-Qaeda) can't take it like the rest of the world can.
The more I read the above remark, the more I wonder how you crammed so much BS into such a short statement.

1) You say you can take it as well as dish it out, yet your OP contains a long complaint about Christians and Jews being "slighted" and portrayed in a negative light (examples of which you do not provide). If it doesn't bother you, why mention it?

2) You criticize un-named newspapers for avoiding offense to Muslims while being willing to offend Christians -- again with no supporting examples, and again, why mention it if it doesn't bother you?

3) Up to this point, you have complained only about Islam and Muslims as a group. You added a disclaimer admitting that most Muslims are nice people, but then went on to talk about the religion as a whole. Yet now you claim you are talking not just about a minority but about terrorists, specifically. This attempt to back away from the hypocrisy of your argument narrows it to the point of being stupid, because of point (4) below.

4) Are you seriously suggesting that the basis of radical Muslim terrorism is that a few Muslims are too touchy? I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. I challenge you to show us precisely how Al qaeda is responding to a few unflattering references to Islam in western media, as opposed to responding to their own private agendas to gain political power through social destabilization and warmongering.

5) If your point is that Muslims are too touchy, what the hell does that have to do with the way Christianity and Judaism are portrayed in the media? Based on the above remark from you, your argument seems to be that Muslims should just shut up and take criticism just like you Christians do, which is little more than another way of saying that Christians are better than Muslims in some way.

6) If your argument is that a number of Muslims get upset about negative portrayals of their religion, whereas a corresponding number of Christians do not get upset by negative portrayals of their religion, I challenge you then to account for the uproar over the recent movie The Golden Compass. It wasn't Muslims bitching about that one. Explain the Catholic League and similar Christian groups in the US who do nothing but and have no reason to exist except to jump all over the media, call for boycotts and lobby Congress for censorship legislation, every time they detect anything even remotely unsupportive of their religious views.

And before you counter with "Well, those groups don't send out suicide bombers," I remind you that I have already called bullshit on your suggestion that you were only talking about Muslim terrorists.

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 18:50

And dammit now I find myself in agreement with Neo Art. :p

Here's the thing about me. I don't really like religion. Any religion. I don't believe in it, I don't think it's true. Christianity, judaism, islam, I don't believe any of it.

But, I don't find anyone one belief to be any worse than the others. I'm not a mormon, but I'm not about to insult your belief structure any worse than anyone else, because I don't find the idea of Joseph Smith finding gold tablets in the woods any more, or less likely and/or bizarre than any other religious claims.

I find the beliefs of just about all religions equally...bizarre and unbelievable, and as such, I attack the beliefs equally and I think a lot here are the same

The thing is, you say people on this forum defend islam but attack christianity, and by and large that's not true, because the context is almost always different. Often it is the christian beliefs that get brough up here. The tenants, dogma, practices and faith. But rarely does anyone actually discuss muslim beliefs. We rarely have discussions on what muslims believe. So if there's ever a thread on the beliefs of muslims, I'll probably point out that they are, to me, equally silly.

However, what DOES get posted here is not about muslim beliefs, but the acts of SOME muslims, and how that relates to islam, in general.

Christianity and islam are discussed in different ways here. Few people have ever tried to link the actions of some christians to christianity as a whole. Most often it's merely a discussion of belief, and people pointing out there belief that such belief is silly.

Islam however is rarely discussed in terms of belief, but often some attempts to get people convinced that "the evil thing that this muslim did" is indicative of muslim faith, in general. Rarely, if ever, do we see "look at what this christian did!" If there was, I'd launch the same defense I do of muslims here. Now if you want to ask me what I think of the muslim faith, I find it just as silly and nonsensical as I do the christian faith.

But two very different things go on in this forum. People don't discuss islamic faith like they do christian faith, they discuss the evil things some muslims do, and try to pin it on all muslims. Then, when people point out, no, it's not all muslims, others, like you, jump up and ask why we don't treat christianity as well, when, in fact, it's entirely different. We critique the BELIEFS of christianity, much like we would critique the BELIEFS of islam. However if one were to try to pin the acts of some evil christians on all christianity, you'd see the same defense here.

You find some disparity, but, frankly, you're discussing two different things. When was the last time you saw an actual thread discussing what muslims BELIEVE, not what ONE muslim DID?

Pan-Arab Barronia

28-12-2007, 18:52

Well, that makes sense for UK newspapers. When was the last time they didn't go out of their way to offend people? No, I'm sure that decision came from their insurance adjusters, not their editors. ;)

Hey, I realised he was right when I saw that the Daily Fail didn't publish them.

Newer Burmecia

28-12-2007, 18:57

Hey, I realised he was right when I saw that the Daily Fail didn't publish them.
Daily Fail? I haven't thought of that one. I usually go with Daily Heil.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 19:07

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

That's not what I said. I said I got my info from books, generally, then I went on to (conversationally) point out some of my specific interests. They were irrelevant but hey sometimes I get long-winded.

As for the exact details of where I read about the origins of the Rennaisance, I don't carry my personal library around with me wherever I go. You'll have to forgive me.
Well, you have the internet in front of you, don't you? If you google books on your subject, or search Amazon or some library sites for your subject, you will likely come up with some titles you recognize as books you have read. So you could easily tell us where you got the information on which you base your arguments.

Of course they form the majority. I never disputed the numbers, I only questioned their meaning.
In a way that has failed, in my opinion.

I mean no offense, but it is generally the case that the only people defending Christians are Christians, but almost everybody will defend Islam if it appears to be under criticism. (Yes, there are always a couple of exceptions.) Remember Deep Kimchi? Everybody remembers him as an Islamophobe but how many posters who have high post counts around here and who won't hesitate to disparage Christianity have a label like that? I don't even know what the corresponding label is. Christianophobe? And it's not just on political issues like abortion.

I mean, don't you find that telling?
No, I don't find it "telling." Frankly, I hesitate even to find it factual. I tend to be skeptical of arguments that have to account for their own exceptions even as they are being made.

That's a good thing. I appreciate that, but you don't exactly represent the majority in that department.
"It takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black." -- Mark Twain

As with your claim that no one applies negative labels to people who are bigoted against Christianity, this is nothing more than an presumption, not a fact. You know what people call anti-Christian bigots on this forum? We call them bigots. Personally, I find that all-purpose pejorative more than sufficient. I don't waste time with specifiers like "Islamophobe" or "Christo'fraidy" or whatever.

What religion might that be? (If you don't mind my asking)
I already said what religion it is, earlier in the post you were responding to. Or rather, I said what kind of religion. "A form of paganism." Specifically, a form of polytheist animism. It doesn't have a name because it is not an organized religion. That's why I like animist religions. No annoying organizations to join or books to memorize. Nothing on which to hang a moniker like "Islamo-Christo-Mormo-tology-fascist" or whatever. The good thing about that is that attacks on my religion are forced to be more open and honest -- since the bigots cannot find some detail with which to objectify my beliefs and put the focus on me rather than them, they have no choice but come right out and say that they hate my religion because it isn't theirs.

I'll make a point to watch for you the next time Christianity and/or Mormonism is getting slammed.
Do you think I'm lying?

And I'll have your back too, when it comes to it.
Thank you for the sentiment, but if you do decide to stand up for me, please make sure your arguments have merit and that you know what you are talking about. Some kinds of help, I don't need.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 19:09

Here's the thing about me. I don't really like religion. Any religion. ...and I think a lot here are the same

Granted.

The thing is, you say people on this forum defend islam but attack christianity, and by and large that's not true, because the context is almost always different.

It would be interesting to make a sort of informal study over the course of say, a year, and make a comparison. That would lay a lot of disagreements on a point like this to rest. The problem is, whenever I've seen somebody point out a thread topic that might serve as an example to the point I've been defending, people tend to get VERY uppity about it and flash that stupid Christian pacman chart.

Christianity and islam are discussed in different ways here. Few people have ever tried to link the actions of some christians to christianity as a whole. Most often it's merely a discussion of belief, and people pointing out there belief that such belief is silly.

I disagree here. Christians are VERY often lumped into the same category as abortion clinic bombers and Phelps protesters. Especially when it's used as a counterpoint against people who accuse all Muslims of being in support of terrorism. (Just because the latter is wrong, it's no excuse for the former.)

Islam however is rarely discussed in terms of belief... When was the last time you saw an actual thread discussing what muslims BELIEVE, not what ONE muslim DID?

It might be useful to see more of it, if for no other reason than to introduce a little variety ;)

Ferrous Oxide

28-12-2007, 19:16

http://www.rationalresponders.com/files/images/ChristianHelp.gif

See, the problem I have with that image is that it's stupid. It's entirely possible for the majority population of a country to be oppressed by a minority.

[NS]Click Stand

28-12-2007, 19:18

Here's the thing about me. I don't really like religion. Any religion. I don't believe in it, I don't think it's true. Christianity, judaism, islam, I don't believe any of it.

But, I don't find anyone one belief to be any worse than the others. I'm not a mormon, but I'm not about to insult your belief structure any worse than anyone else, because I don't find the idea of Joseph Smith finding gold tablets in the woods any more, or less likely and/or bizarre than any other religious claims.

I find the beliefs of just about all religions equally...bizarre and unbelievable, and as such, I attack the beliefs equally and I think a lot here are the same

The thing is, you say people on this forum defend islam but attack christianity, and by and large that's not true, because the context is almost always different. Often it is the christian beliefs that get brough up here. The tenants, dogma, practices and faith. But rarely does anyone actually discuss muslim beliefs. We rarely have discussions on what muslims believe. So if there's ever a thread on the beliefs of muslims, I'll probably point out that they are, to me, equally silly.

However, what DOES get posted here is not about muslim beliefs, but the acts of SOME muslims, and how that relates to islam, in general.

Christianity and islam are discussed in different ways here. Few people have ever tried to link the actions of some christians to christianity as a whole. Most often it's merely a discussion of belief, and people pointing out there belief that such belief is silly.

Islam however is rarely discussed in terms of belief, but often some attempts to get people convinced that "the evil thing that this muslim did" is indicative of muslim faith, in general. Rarely, if ever, do we see "look at what this christian did!" If there was, I'd launch the same defense I do of muslims here. Now if you want to ask me what I think of the muslim faith, I find it just as silly and nonsensical as I do the christian faith.

But two very different things go on in this forum. People don't discuss islamic faith like they do christian faith, they discuss the evil things some muslims do, and try to pin it on all muslims. Then, when people point out, no, it's not all muslims, others, like you, jump up and ask why we don't treat christianity as well, when, in fact, it's entirely different. We critique the BELIEFS of christianity, much like we would critique the BELIEFS of islam. However if one were to try to pin the acts of some evil christians on all christianity, you'd see the same defense here.

You find some disparity, but, frankly, you're discussing two different things. When was the last time you saw an actual thread discussing what muslims BELIEVE, not what ONE muslim DID?

Your post and the post above you have too much truth in them, please cease and desist before the OP decides that he may in fact be wrong.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 19:25

Granted.

It would be interesting to make a sort of informal study over the course of say, a year, and make a comparison. That would lay a lot of disagreements on a point like this to rest. The problem is, whenever I've seen somebody point out a thread topic that might serve as an example to the point I've been defending, people tend to get VERY uppity about it and flash that stupid Christian pacman chart.
We must always remind ourselves that we do not see every single thing that happens in this forum, 24/7. First, our experience is limited by time, second it is limited by our interests. So we must remember that our impression of what goes on in NSG may not be entirely accurate.

As for that pacman chart, yes, it is annoying when a statement can be countered in such a conversation-killing way, but I think it is an effective, graphical counter to "Christians are being persecuted" type arguments. Though we must remember that it is impossible for the Christian majority to be persecuted because, in Christian dominated countries, Christians hold governmental power as well. Not like, in pre-Bush Iraq, where the minority Muslim sect held political dominance via the Baath Party over the majority sect, as one example. In the US, for example, polytheist animists do not control the Whitehouse or the majority of seats in Congress.

I disagree here. Christians are VERY often lumped into the same category as abortion clinic bombers and Phelps protesters. Especially when it's used as a counterpoint against people who accuse all Muslims of being in support of terrorism. (Just because the latter is wrong, it's no excuse for the former.)
Well, this argument may be disingenuous in two ways.

1) I don't know what arguments you have seen, but most of the arguments I have seen that do that are actually deliberately making a false point, i.e. saying that it is as false to claim that all Muslims are like terrorists as it is to claim that all Christians are like Fred Phelps.

2) The minority of people who do make such claims in seriousness are, I put it to you, always the same small group of individuals, known to be bigoted against either Christianity or against religion in general. I am, by the way, leaving out the typical superficial 1st time posts by uninformed teenagers, who often refine their views with practice, and of course, I'm ignoring trolls, who will say anything. I suggest that to point to the bigoted arguments of a few individuals and claim they represent the prevailing view of NSGers is no more valid than to say that Fred Phelps is typical of all Christians. This is especially true when there are NSGers like me who attack those bigots just as readily as we attack anti-Muslim bigots.

It might be useful to see more of it, if for no other reason than to introduce a little variety ;)
More information is always better than less.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 19:30

Well, you have the internet in front of you, don't you? If you google books on your subject, or search Amazon or some library sites for your subject, you will likely come up with some titles you recognize as books you have read. So you could easily tell us where you got the information on which you base your arguments.

Not as easy as you might think.

No, I don't find it "telling." Frankly, I hesitate even to find it factual. I tend to be skeptical of arguments that have to account for their own exceptions even as they are being made.

Fine.

"It takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black." -- Mark Twain

One white crow does not a trend make.

As with your claim that no one applies negative labels to people who are bigoted against Christianity, this is nothing more than an presumption, not a fact. You know what people call anti-Christian bigots on this forum? We call them bigots. Personally, I find that all-purpose pejorative more than sufficient. I don't waste time with specifiers like "Islamophobe" or "Christo'fraidy" or whatever.

So you don't find it AT ALL interesting that people react strongly enough to anti-Islamic rhetoric that there's a word for it, but not for anti-Christian rhetoric? I mean, in a day and age where people pass out labels like candy, we don't see one for that specific type of bigotry?

Remember, every time someone even complains about it in a forum like this, we're treated to the pacman graph.

I already said what religion it is, earlier in the post you were responding to. Or rather, I said what kind of religion. "A form of paganism." Specifically, a form of polytheist animism. It doesn't have a name because it is not an organized religion.

No need to get snippy I was looking for more info out of simple curiosity.

Do you think I'm lying?

No, I'm trying to acknowledge what you're saying and have pledged to be aware of it in the future.

Thank you for the sentiment, but if you do decide to stand up for me, please make sure your arguments have merit and that you know what you are talking about. Some kinds of help, I don't need.

So be it. You complained that nobody has your back but the last 3 items on this post you responded to me in a snippy tone even though my posts on those was in NO WAY nasty. (And in fact, were meant o be concilliatory) Take the chip off of your shoulder, please.

My objective is generally to come up with some kind of common ground to communicate with. More often than not people talk past each other without even realizing they're not talking about the same thing.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 19:31

See, the problem I have with that image is that it's stupid. It's entirely possible for the majority population of a country to be oppressed by a minority.
Except that in Christian dominated countries today, Christians also dominate the social and political power structures. In countries where a minority holds power, then it is possible for the majority to be oppressed by the minority, but in countries where the majority holds power... well, they'd have to be oppressing themselves, wouldn't they, since they're the ones who have the power to oppress.

Now, there may be today some countries where the majority of people are Christians but a non-Christian minority holds all the power, but I don't know of any off-hand. If you can point them out to me and show me that oppression is taking place, then that would be a valid point. I know that Christians are being oppressed in places like China and some African states, but they are the minority in those countries, not the majority.

Ferrous Oxide

28-12-2007, 19:37

Except that in Christian dominated countries today, Christians also dominate the social and political power structures. In countries where a minority holds power, then it is possible for the majority to be oppressed by the minority, but in countries where the majority holds power... well, they'd have to be oppressing themselves, wouldn't they, since they're the ones who have the power to oppress.

Now, there may be today some countries where the majority of people are Christians but a non-Christian minority holds all the power, but I don't know of any off-hand. If you can point them out to me and show me that oppression is taking place, then that would be a valid point. I know that Christians are being oppressed in places like China and some African states, but they are the minority in those countries, not the majority.

Doesn't matter. The argument of that image is majorities can't complain about be oppressed, and I'm saying that they can.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 19:42

well, NB can't be that bad, he plays warhammer. But, he plays brettonians, so I'm not so sure...

Oh gawd I wish you lived nearby. I need a new opponent so bad...

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 19:43

well, NB can't be that bad, he plays warhammer. But, he plays brettonians, so I'm not so sure...

Neo Art

28-12-2007, 19:49

Oh gawd I wish you lived nearby. I need a new opponent so bad...

did you play 40k, or just fantasy?

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 19:54

did you play 40k, or just fantasy?

Both. I have a Black Templars army for 40k.

Zayun2

28-12-2007, 20:00

1) This society doesn't have a problem with Romney because he isn't Christian enough; this society has a problem with Romney because he is a member of a glorified cult which, until 1970, banned African Americans from joining because they "weren't human." Um, "Magic Glasses"? Hello? Forget him being Christian enough, I don't want a president who's gullible enough to believe that crap.

2) We live in a society where, yes, stupid people live. I'm pretty sure that stupid, ignorant people live in every society, and it would be foolish of you to think that these idiots didn't receive punishment for their actions. To be frank, the people who beat an innocent Hindu deserve the same treatment.

3) We live in a society that is threatened everyday by radical Muslims who believe that at the end of the day, even the rocks will cry out and say "O believer, there is a Jew behind me," and that same believer will be expected to then kill the Jew. I mean, this is coming from the Koran, for God's sake. Even non-radical Muslims have to admit it's there, but the radicals don't have the common sense to take a step back and say "wait a minute, something is wrong here." I mean, if I had to take my pick of what religion I would want forced upon me (an idea that scares me greatly), I wouldn't be eager to choose the one that predicates the death of everyone who isn't someone of my religion. That's just me, though.

4) Again, stupidity on the part of the protesters. It would make more sense to me to have him sworn in on the religious book of his choosing. That way, he might actually mean it when he's being sworn in.

5) We live in a society that has it's share of racists, bigots, and morons of all colors, shapes, and sizes. A person with an IQ above 8 should know that a mosque, 9 times out of 10, is a place of worship and peaceful prayer, not some sanctuary for violence. And even in that 1 time out of 10 when a mosque serves as a breeding ground for these sorts of extremists, it's probably located overseas in a country like Iran.

6) We live in a society where I suppose the founders of our country were members of the eeeevillllll Christian right. I mean, Jefferson was just one of those stupid neo-Conservatives who was trying to force God down our throats! (If you don't believe me, how about you check out one of his lesser known works (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/uc06330.jpg)- I think I see at least two references to God in the first two paragraphs alone. I guess, based on those references to God, we should just discount the validity of the whole document, or at the very least have it removed from our public schools.)

These issues aside, I don't think you get my point. Here's (http://newsbusters.org/media/Jesus%20is%20that%20you2.jpg)
a cover of Rolling Stone featuring Kanye West (who happens to be one of my favorite musical artists). You mean to tell me, in all honesty, that no one would have a problem with it if Kanye were dressed up as Mohammed? Please.

Now where's my cheesecake? :P

1. You just proved your irrational fear/hate of Mormonism, proving the original point.

2. Well, it's particularly telling when people are getting beaten up for a crime they didn't commit, and had absolutely no relation to other than the fact that they were not white.

3. Threatened everyday? Not really, but you can keep watching Fox and live in fear all the time if you'd like. Anyways, where does the Quran say any of that stuff? You should have sources.

4. Agreed.

5. Sombodies been watching Fox lately.

6. I'm thinking Jefferson was a deist. You know, the people that supported rationality and tolerance, not bigotry.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 20:06

Not as easy as you might think.
I know it's a pain. I've done it and avoid doing it as much as I can. But since you base your argument on these books, and you have been asked to account for your sources, if I were you, I would feel obliged to either produce them or cede the point.

Fine.

One white crow does not a trend make.
Neither does a few anti-Christian bigots out of an entire forum.

So you don't find it AT ALL interesting that people react strongly enough to anti-Islamic rhetoric that there's a word for it, but not for anti-Christian rhetoric? I mean, in a day and age where people pass out labels like candy, we don't see one for that specific type of bigotry?
No, because such labels are made up by bigots, and I do not consider bigots to be social trendsetters. The passing out of labels is a bad habit. The fact that some people choose not to do it should be commended rather than questioned. I would rather question why some people feel the need to make up a label like "Islamophobe" when "anti-Muslim bigot" will do just as well -- better even, because its meaning is clear. Noun + adjective works every time.

Remember, every time someone even complains about it in a forum like this, we're treated to the pacman graph.
Were you traumatized by pacman as a child? The graph may be a cheap shot, but really, I mean, come on. At worst, it's a non-argument and can be dismissed as such. It's hardly a brutal attack or hate speech.

No need to get snippy I was looking for more info out of simple curiosity.
Snippy is my default setting. Nothing personal. You'll get used to it.

No, I'm trying to acknowledge what you're saying and have pledged to be aware of it in the future.
That's good.

So be it. You complained that nobody has your back but the last 3 items on this post you responded to me in a snippy tone even though my posts on those was in NO WAY nasty. (And in fact, were meant o be concilliatory) Take the chip off of your shoulder, please.
That chip has nothing to do with you but it's there for a reason, so no, I won't remove it, sorry. It's okay, you don't have to like me.

Look, let's speak plainly: I've seen a lot of posts from you in a lot of threads. On many issues I agree with you. On a few I disagree. On fewer still, I disagree vehemently. I don't choose to respond to every thread, though, no matter what my opinion. I do not expect that to change based on this conversation. So if I'm being snippy (or snippier than usual), it might be that I don't really think this conversation is either the context in which to forge future alliances against bigots, nor a foundation on which to base such a alliance. (Note: Yes, I am being sarcastic. That is not the same as snippy, though.)

And frankly, since I've been on this forum for several years, and have been in more than one religion thread with you, I would think you would be aware of my consistent stance concerning it. Yet, you seem to think you've never seen me defend Christianity or other religions against bigots. Funny, because I remember you being around sometimes when I've done it. Oh, well, like I said, each of us may have different recollections. I went on about my forum history precisely to counter your claims of a lack of people willing to defend Christianity. You say I don't count (because one person doesn't make a "trend"). I say you cannot refute facts, and I am a fact, Neo Art is a fact, there are many NSG posters who speak out against religious bigotry of all kinds, and they are facts as well. I am just one example. You seemed to have been ignorant of my existence before now. Perhaps you are ignorant of the others as well. But not any more. I suggest, now that you have me and Neo Art to go by, you should pay closer attention to what others are saying as well. Then you might get a more accurate picture of what the "trend" really is.

Okay, fine, it's true. I am annoyed with you. It is because I made the argument very plainly (and Neo Art made it even more plainly) that it is not accurate to say that NSG does not speak out against bigotry when it is directed against Christians. I have presented myself as an example of one who does the opposite. Neo Art is another example. I have also suggested that those who do express anti-Christian bigotry are not a majority of NSG, but a very limited minority, and that they regularly meet opposition. You have failed to acknowledge that such information might change the basis of your argument and rather than check your facts, you simply move the goal posts -- suddenly minorities become less important and "majority" has to get broader and broader. There are a lot of topics in NSG. Not everyone has the same level of interest in them. If the same (picking random numbers here) 5 posters always express anti-Christian bigotry and the same 6 posters always argue against them, why would anyone assume that those numbers mean that the whole rest of NSG is silent because they agree with the bigots rather than the anti-bigots? Why isn't the assumption that the rest of NSG is silent on the matter because they are not interested in it?

You claim the existence of a "trend." I dispute the existence of that trend. I have shown you factual exceptions to your rule that undermine your rule (using "rule" loosely). You have shown me a lack of factual data as if this lack somehow supports your claim. I'm sorry, but if you want to win this one, and prove to me that the majority of NSGers are okay with anti-Christian bigotry, you're going to have to do just that -- prove it.

My objective is generally to come up with some kind of common ground to communicate with. More often than not people talk past each other without even realizing they're not talking about the same thing.
Indeed.

Muravyets

28-12-2007, 20:10

Doesn't matter. The argument of that image is majorities can't complain about be oppressed, and I'm saying that they can.

No, that was not the argument. As I said.

Pan-Arab Barronia

28-12-2007, 20:15

Daily Fail? I haven't thought of that one. I usually go with Daily Heil.

Also interchangable with the Daily Phail. I usually reserve Daily Heil for speaking to someone. Yes, I do refer to it as the Daily Heil outside of NSG.

Fall of Empire

28-12-2007, 20:29

1. You just proved your irrational fear/hate of Mormonism, proving the original point.

6. I'm thinking Jefferson was a deist. You know, the people that supported rationality and tolerance, not bigotry.

Two things:

1) Mitt Romney is losing because he is a political shape shifter, and everyone knows it.

2) Deism does not equal tolerance or rationality. Christianity does not equal bigotry. To believe so is intolerant, irrational, and bigotry.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 20:29

I know it's a pain. I've done it and avoid doing it as much as I can. But since you base your argument on these books, and you have been asked to account for your sources, if I were you, I would feel obliged to either produce them or cede the point.

I'm curious as to why I'm expected to provide these sources but no sources have been asked of the claim I initially disgreed with.

No, because such labels are made up by bigots, and I do not consider bigots to be social trendsetters. The passing out of labels is a bad habit. The fact that some people choose not to do it should be commended rather than questioned. I would rather question why some people feel the need to make up a label like "Islamophobe" when "anti-Muslim bigot" will do just as well -- better even, because its meaning is clear. Noun + adjective works every time.

In principle, you and I agree. Doesn't change the situation, though.

Were you traumatized by pacman as a child? The graph may be a cheap shot, but really, I mean, come on. At worst, it's a non-argument and can be dismissed as such. It's hardly a brutal attack or hate speech.

Because people who use it think it's a slam-dunk argument.

Snippy is my default setting. Nothing personal. You'll get used to it.

It hardly facilitates communication though, does it?

That chip has nothing to do with you but it's there for a reason, so no, I won't remove it, sorry. It's okay, you don't have to like me.

I don't know you well enough to like or dislike you.

Look, let's speak plainly:

I'll reply in the spirit of that.

And frankly, since I've been on this forum for several years, and have been in more than one religion thread with you, I would think you would be aware of my consistent stance concerning it. Yet, you seem to think you've never seen me defend Christianity or other religions against bigots. Funny, because I remember you being around sometimes when I've done it. Oh, well, like I said, each of us may have different recollections. I went on about my forum history precisely to counter your claims of a lack of people willing to defend Christianity.

Since we're being plain, here's the thing. You seem to be taking it personally that I haven't remembered you as a champion of anti-bigotry. I fail to understand why. I accept your word that you've agrued against bigots and have no reason to doubt you, but that doesn't mean I'm going to prop you up as a special example. I've been careful to point out that the anti-Christian rhetoric was a general circumstance and that there were some exceptions. If you're one of those exceptions, great. But the way you talk it sounds like you want your very own Junior Woodchuck Medal of Valor for doing it.

You say I don't count (because one person doesn't make a "trend"). I say you cannot refute facts,... Perhaps you are ignorant of the others as well. But not any more. I suggest, now that you have me and Neo Art to go by, you should pay closer attention to what others are saying as well. Then you might get a more accurate picture of what the "trend" really is.

I've known of your existence. Neo Art's too. (now that guy DOES stand out in my memory ;) )

Okay, fine, it's true. I am annoyed with you. It is because I made the argument very plainly (and Neo Art made it even more plainly) that it is not accurate to say that NSG does not speak out against bigotry when it is directed against Christians.

I don't care. Be annoyed. To be honest, and no offense is meant even though I can't think of a gentler way to phrase it, I think you've got your head in the sand. I think people who are on the outside of Christianity find it very easy to overlook anti-Christian rhetoric or to minimize its impact. (The same would be true for Islam, for that matter.)

The only real way to settle this kind of disagreement would be to make an actual count of such threads and really look at who's saying what and run the numbers. You say I'm wrong, I say you are. In truth, neither of us can prove a thing because there aren't any numbers to support either position. That brings it down to the level of an opinion.

...Why isn't the assumption that the rest of NSG is silent on the matter because they are not interested in it?

It's not the silence I object to. Never was, nor have I ever said so.

You claim the existence of a "trend." I dispute the existence of that trend. I have shown you factual exceptions to your rule that undermine your rule (using "rule" loosely). You have shown me a lack of factual data as if this lack somehow supports your claim. I'm sorry, but if you want to win this one, and prove to me that the majority of NSGers are okay with anti-Christian bigotry, you're going to have to do just that -- prove it.

In fairness, you haven't shown a single scrap of data to prove me wrong, either (see above.)

Let me put it to you this way: What do you think? That people are just pulling arguments like this out of their arse? You think I came into this thread because I feel repressed? I came to attack hypocrisy and because the OP (at the time) seemed to be making a valid point. (He later revealed himself for what he was and now I feel like I need a shower.) So I got nailed on this one. Fine. I do stick to the assertion that there's a general anti-Christian bias on NSG posters. You want proof? Let's do a count. Let's do it for fun and see how things go. You and I could even agree on the "rules" for teh study.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to cry foul on behalf of Christians per se. I take as much crap from the evangelicals as anybody (for being a Mormon.) Part of me is tempted to just let them get a taste of their own medicine.

So you want to do that study?

Zayun2

28-12-2007, 20:38

Two things:

1) Mitt Romney is losing because he is a political shape shifter, and everyone knows it.

2) Deism does not equal tolerance or rationality. Christianity does not equal bigotry. To believe so is intolerant, irrational, and bigotry.

1. That's part of the reason why he's losing, but there was, and I suppose still is, a rather large controversy over his faith.

2. Deism was about applying logic, that the universe is rational, and so God must be as well. And generally, deists did support tolerance, as this was one of the products of the Enlightenment.

I don't really know why I stuck bigot in there. I guess it was more of a poke at the person I was quoting, I recognize that it is bigotry to suggest that all Christians are bigots.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 20:41

1. That's part of the reason why he's losing, but there was, and I suppose still is, a rather large controversy over his faith.

That was something that really blew a hole in my faith in a lot of Conservatives, right below the water line.

I knew there was a lot of anti-Mormon bigotry out there, but what shocked me was just how self-righteous people get about it. I was listening to the Sean Hannity show (yeah, yeah I know... he annoys me too sometimes) but they were discussing this issue and it amazed me how many callers phoned into the show to proclaim -- proudly -- that they'd never vote for Romney because of his religion.

Fall of Empire

28-12-2007, 20:50

1. That's part of the reason why he's losing, but there was, and I suppose still is, a rather large controversy over his faith.

2. Deism was about applying logic, that the universe is rational, and so God must be as well. And generally, deists did support tolerance, as this was one of the products of the Enlightenment.

I don't really know why I stuck bigot in there. I guess it was more of a poke at the person I was quoting, I recognize that it is bigotry to suggest that all Christians are bigots.

1) There's truth behind that statement. But that's the same with any candidate that's the first from their respective race/religion/gender/age/etc. To counter that, the candidate has stellar in their performance. I'd say Romney fails at that point.

2) Oh, sorry. The implication was that Christians support bigotry, a point I was attempting to counter. And honestly, I was trying to throw in my opinion amidst the massive war between muravyets and neo-brettonia.

Unlucky_and_unbiddable

28-12-2007, 22:05

I mean no offense, but it is generally the case that the only people defending Christians are Christians, but almost everybody will defend Islam if it appears to be under criticism. (Yes, there are always a couple of exceptions.) Remember Deep Kimchi? Everybody remembers him as an Islamophobe but how many posters who have high post counts around here and who won't hesitate to disparage Christianity have a label like that? I don't even know what the corresponding label is. Christianophobe? And it's not just on political issues like abortion.

I mean, don't you find that telling?

What about Fass? He insults Christianity and many on here think that he is a bigot.

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 22:10

What about Fass? He insults Christianity and many on here think that he is a bigot.

Fas gets a helluva lot more love than DK got around here.

Zayun2

28-12-2007, 22:23

What about Fass? He insults Christianity and many on here think that he is a bigot.

Fas gets a helluva lot more love than DK got around here.

From what I've seen he insults other religions as well. By the way, who's DK?

Neo Bretonnia

28-12-2007, 22:25

From what I've seen he insults other religions as well. By the way, who's DK?

DK = Deep Kimchi, a poster who was active on the boards about a year ago who developed a reputation for anti-Islamic sentiment due to the nature of his posts, whicy typically focused on Islamic terrorism or complcity with it.

Zayun2

28-12-2007, 22:32

DK = Deep Kimchi, a poster who was active on the boards about a year ago who developed a reputation for anti-Islamic sentiment due to the nature of his posts, whicy typically focused on Islamic terrorism or complcity with it.

I had heard of Deep Kimchi, but I didn't make the DK connection.

Deus Malum

28-12-2007, 22:52

Oh gawd I wish you lived nearby. I need a new opponent so bad...

well, NB can't be that bad, he plays warhammer. But, he plays brettonians, so I'm not so sure...

40k is better anyway, chumps.

Muravyets

29-12-2007, 01:03

I'm curious as to why I'm expected to provide these sources but no sources have been asked of the claim I initially disgreed with.
As far as I understand it, the poster you were responding to had expressed an opinion about the OP. You responded with an assertion of things you said were facts. Then the person you responded to asked you to back up those facts. Since his initial post was not an assertion of facts, there is nothing for him to post sources about.

In principle, you and I agree. Doesn't change the situation, though.
You mean the situation you say exists and I say doesn't?

Because people who use it think it's a slam-dunk argument.
So? Lots of people think their favorite snappy come-backs are slam-dunk arguments. People can think anything they like. Who cares what they think?

It hardly facilitates communication though, does it?
I have never had a problem with it. At least not one that I cared about.

I don't know you well enough to like or dislike you.
Likewise, but pay attention in religion topic threads and maybe you will come like or dislike me someday. Or not.

I'll reply in the spirit of that.

Since we're being plain, here's the thing. You seem to be taking it personally that I haven't remembered you as a champion of anti-bigotry. I fail to understand why.
Maybe because that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I accept your word that you've agrued against bigots and have no reason to doubt you, but that doesn't mean I'm going to prop you up as a special example. I've been careful to point out that the anti-Christian rhetoric was a general circumstance and that there were some exceptions. If you're one of those exceptions, great.
And that is the point I WAS trying to make -- I disagree with this assertion. I dispute your assertion that anti-Christian rhetoric is a general circumstance. I dispute your assertion that people who argue against anti-Christian bigotry are an exception. I say the exact opposite is the actual general circumstance, that there are more opponents of religious bigotry than there are anti-Christian bigots in NSG.

But the way you talk it sounds like you want your very own Junior Woodchuck Medal of Valor for doing it.
Again, that is possibly because you missed my point. Please see above.

I've known of your existence. Neo Art's too. (now that guy DOES stand out in my memory ;) )

I don't care. Be annoyed. To be honest, and no offense is meant even though I can't think of a gentler way to phrase it, I think you've got your head in the sand. I think people who are on the outside of Christianity find it very easy to overlook anti-Christian rhetoric or to minimize its impact. (The same would be true for Islam, for that matter.)
And I think you've got your head so wrapped up in anti-Christian bias that it blinds you to the existence of anti-bigotry allies you may have here and in the world at large. Some people rather harshly describe that as a "victim mentality," which perhaps you might also take as anti-Christian rhetoric, but in fact, it is more often an expression of frustration from people who are trying to show you that it is not as bad as you may think.

Bigotry is bad no matter who it is targeted against, but frankly I do have to say I don't really have a huge load of concern for the potential fate of a group of people who, in my country, currently hold all the social and political power. Yes, it's very unpleasant if bigots yell at Christians in the US and try to sue them (speciously, imo) for their public holidays, but there really isn't all that much they can do to hurt those Christians in any real sense, socially or politically, now is there? Now, Christian minorities in some other countries, that's a different story.

The only real way to settle this kind of disagreement would be to make an actual count of such threads and really look at who's saying what and run the numbers. You say I'm wrong, I say you are. In truth, neither of us can prove a thing because there aren't any numbers to support either position. That brings it down to the level of an opinion.
I am not motivated to make such a study, but the materials are right here for anyone else to do it.

It's not the silence I object to. Never was, nor have I ever said so.
But the silence makes the difference, because if the fact is that only a very small, select few posters are expressing anti-Christian views, and the rest of NSG is silent because they are uninterested in religious topics, not because they agree with the bigots, then that undermines your assertion that anti-Christian rhetoric is the "general circumstance." How many members of this forum are there, and how many of them express anti-Christian rhetoric? Just as one white crow does not make a trend, so neither does 6 - 10 (guesstimate) individuals out of a forum used by hundreds make a general circumstance.

In fairness, you haven't shown a single scrap of data to prove me wrong, either (see above.)
I have shown you myself and Neo Art. That's not much, but it's more than you have shown.

Let me put it to you this way: What do you think? That people are just pulling arguments like this out of their arse?
Yes, because they have very few facts to show in support of their arguments.

You think I came into this thread because I feel repressed?
No.

I came to attack hypocrisy and because the OP (at the time) seemed to be making a valid point. (He later revealed himself for what he was and now I feel like I need a shower.) So I got nailed on this one. Fine. I do stick to the assertion that there's a general anti-Christian bias on NSG posters. You want proof? Let's do a count. Let's do it for fun and see how things go. You and I could even agree on the "rules" for teh study.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to cry foul on behalf of Christians per se. I take as much crap from the evangelicals as anybody (for being a Mormon.) Part of me is tempted to just let them get a taste of their own medicine.

So you want to do that study?
You lay out some ground rules, and we'll see. I'm not good at formulating such things. I would just read the whole damned forum and all the archives and pull links, but that would take a very, very long time, which, sadly, I do not have available.

Muravyets

29-12-2007, 01:06

1) There's truth behind that statement. But that's the same with any candidate that's the first from their respective race/religion/gender/age/etc. To counter that, the candidate has stellar in their performance. I'd say Romney fails at that point.

2) Oh, sorry. The implication was that Christians support bigotry, a point I was attempting to counter. And honestly, I was trying to throw in my opinion amidst the massive war between muravyets and neo-brettonia.
What war? We're not warring. We are having a frank exchange of viewpoints. ;)

Laerod

29-12-2007, 01:06

Fas gets a helluva lot more love than DK got around here.That might be because Fass is a doctor and DK frequently mentioned how much he enjoyed killing people.

Muravyets

29-12-2007, 01:11

Fas gets a helluva lot more love than DK got around here.

That might be because Fass is a doctor and DK frequently mentioned how much he enjoyed killing people.
Seriously, this is true. I won't opine on Fass because I have a superstitious fear of saying his name. ;)

But when it comes to DK, excuse me, NB, but there were a lot of reasons to dislike DK that had nothing at all to do with whatever his professed religion or views on Christianity might have been. His frequent advocacy of genocide tops my list of marks against him. Being anti-DK in no way shows that a person is anti-Christian, please, I mean, really.

Ohshucksiforgotourname

29-12-2007, 02:34

if there is a dictatorship in the future it'll either be ran by some major entrepreneur/big business or by belligerent liberals who have this passionate hatred for Christians.

I hope you're wrong. Both about the possibility of there being a future dictatorship to come to the USA and about it possibly being run by belligerent, Christian-hating liberals.

LONG LIVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION! :D

Well, although I cannot find an example online (although it would again, be asinine of you to pretend you're unaware of such behavior), I did find this article (http://www.parttimepundit.com/archives/2542) detailing some reinforcing of typical Christian stereotypes at an American university. Just imagine how pleased all of the radicals in the Middle East would be if a similar lesson taught that all Muslims carry bombs strapped to them at all times, so you should probably be careful around them.

I followed your link and read the article, and it was excellent and I agree with it.

Intangelon

29-12-2007, 02:35

LONG LIVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION! :D

AND FREEDOM FROM RELIGION AS WELL!

Intangelon

29-12-2007, 02:39

Durrrrr....Ficas/Hibuscus 20!!!

No way! Ficus is soft on crime! Rhododendron/Juniper is the ticket!

Well, basically the Ottoman Empire took over, which was an ultra-conservative and very oppressive state. When they could, they used religion to keep themselves in power.

But compared to the more liberal and progressive neighbours in the west they fell behind, and that left deep scars in many Muslims' histories, especially when the empire was then carved up and turned into colonies. So you've got these places where hurt pride is the order of the day, and dictatorships taking them over.

There was Pan-Arabism for a while, but that was never gonna take off, especially with Israel refusing to roll over. So political Islam was the major unifying force to draw upon. Basically the dictatorships tried to use Islam to control the masses, and at the same time the only opposition could develop within the Islamic community, since any secular force was immediately crushed.

None of these parties had any interest in moderate, progressive forms of Islam. They needed control and collective anger, and those were the directions they pursued.

Well posted. Thank you.

Ohshucksiforgotourname

29-12-2007, 02:40

Christianity does not equal bigotry. To believe so is intolerant, irrational, and bigotry.

I recognize that it is bigotry to suggest that all Christians are bigots.

QFT to both of these. Now if only someone could get Fassitude and Rotovia to understand this.

Neo Bretonnia

29-12-2007, 07:14

40k is better anyway, chumps.

How far is Baltimore from you? I have a 40K army that needs some target practice...

As far as I understand it, the poster you were responding to had expressed an opinion about the OP. You responded with an assertion of things you said were facts. Then the person you responded to asked you to back up those facts. Since his initial post was not an assertion of facts, there is nothing for him to post sources about.

They were asserting that the Rennaisance was triggered by Islamic culture. I disagreed. I'm still mystified as to why my burden of proof should be any greater than theirs.

Here's the thing, when it comes to sourcing on here, and I've been considering starting a thread on the matter. It's pointless, and if you've seen me in other threads then you've probably seen me make this point.

When someone has a stack of links to sources they think will support them, the opponent always either a)ignores the links b)refutes them (or thinks they're refuting them) or c)provides completely contradictory links of their own. I see absolutely no purpose being served there because it always devolves into a game of "my source is better than yours."

And of course, Wiki is an easy target as is Fox news.

In this particular case, we're talking about some books. I see no reason to dig them out and give a bibliography. What are you going to do, go to the library and get them out and look up the references? I mean, honestly. None of us are really experts in this stuff, so at best we're just tossing around our own opinions and conclusions. To me, either the person you're debating gets the benefit of the doubt or they don't. Tossing around a bunch of references, trying to look all scholarly and wise, all the while being just as closed minded and stubborn as ever, is juvenile and frankly, pretense.

You mean the situation you say exists and I say doesn't?

The disagreement itself, yes.

So? Lots of people think their favorite snappy come-backs are slam-dunk arguments. People can think anything they like. Who cares what they think?

Well if you're going to debate the topic...

Likewise, but pay attention in religion topic threads and maybe you will come like or dislike me someday. Or not.

If you've seen me in a religious topic then I'm sure you've noticed I'm typically engaged with several people at once. Several long winded people. If you weren't one of the ones attacking, then it's unlikely that I'd have much time to ponder your words beyond a quick mental 'thank you' and then once more unto the breach. Just don't assume I'm not paying attention.

And that is the point I WAS trying to make -- I disagree with this assertion. I dispute your assertion that anti-Christian rhetoric is a general circumstance. I dispute your assertion that people who argue against anti-Christian bigotry are an exception. I say the exact opposite is the actual general circumstance, that there are more opponents of religious bigotry than there are anti-Christian bigots in NSG.

Well we seem to have th ebeginnings of a mechanism for proving it one way or the other.

And I think you've got your head so wrapped up in anti-Christian bias that it blinds you to the existence of anti-bigotry allies you may have here and in the world at large. Some people rather harshly describe that as a "victim mentality," which perhaps you might also take as anti-Christian rhetoric, but in fact, it is more often an expression of frustration from people who are trying to show you that it is not as bad as you may think.

Possible, but oftimes It's me against a group and even those who are on my side from an anti-bigotry stance typically don't stay with it as long as I do. It may not be quite as bad as I think, but I still say it's worse than you think. Reality is probably somewhere in between.

Bigotry is bad no matter who it is targeted against, but frankly I do have to say I don't really have a huge load of concern for the potential fate of a group of people who, in my country, currently hold all the social and political power. Yes, it's very unpleasant if bigots yell at Christians in the US and try to sue them (speciously, imo) for their public holidays, but there really isn't all that much they can do to hurt those Christians in any real sense, socially or politically, now is there? Now, Christian minorities in some other countries, that's a different story.

It's not like CHristians have never been persectued, and you don't have to go back to the Roman EMpire to find it. Catholics emmigrated to the colony of Maryland to escape anti-Catholic persecution in England. Ditto for Quakers and a few others. As recently as the mid 1800s an execution order was signed by the Missouri Governor against Mormons. This stuff comes in cycles.

But the silence makes the difference, because if the fact is that only a very small, select few posters are expressing anti-Christian views, and the rest of NSG is silent because they are uninterested in religious topics, not because they agree with the bigots, then that undermines your assertion that anti-Christian rhetoric is the "general circumstance." How many members of this forum are there, and how many of them express anti-Christian rhetoric? Just as one white crow does not make a trend, so neither does 6 - 10 (guesstimate) individuals out of a forum used by hundreds make a general circumstance.

I don't think the silent ones count for anything one way or the other. Most of them are lurkers anyway.

I have shown you myself and Neo Art. That's not much, but it's more than you have shown.

Do I really need to? You've been around long enough to know some names.

You lay out some ground rules, and we'll see. I'm not good at formulating such things. I would just read the whole damned forum and all the archives and pull links, but that would take a very, very long time, which, sadly, I do not have available.

Well I was thinking you and I could independently count posts created on or after January 1. We count only threads we've both participated in, since that way we can ensure that we're both seeing the same data. Rather than count individual posts, maybe take a count of the first, say, 20 replies to an OP and rate them as being hostile, indifferent, or supportive of Christianity/Islam. Maybe do it for 3 or 6 months.

What war? We're not warring. We are having a frank exchange of viewpoints. ;)

Right on.

But when it comes to DK, excuse me, NB, but there were a lot of reasons to dislike DK that had nothing at all to do with whatever his professed religion or views on Christianity might have been. His frequent advocacy of genocide tops my list of marks against him. Being anti-DK in no way shows that a person is anti-Christian, please, I mean, really.

I don't recall his advocating genocide. Admittedly I could have missed something, but the worst I remember out of him was his enjoyment of being in combat. (Not cool but hardly genocide.)

Unlucky_and_unbiddable

29-12-2007, 08:02

They were asserting that the Rennaisance was triggered by Islamic culture. I disagreed. I'm still mystified as to why my burden of proof should be any greater than theirs.

Okay, let me start off by saying there was no single cause of the Renaissance. It was several factors combined. If you've been reading books that just skim over the Renaissance you have probably heard The Plague being mentioned, possibly you have heard of Greek influence, too.
Now, this did contribute by leeching the power of the church in causing doubt. But we know Islam's influence on the Renaissance just by observations. They took Islamic inventions and knowledge such as numeric system, universities, algebra, calligraphy and expended on them. Their architectural, and cultural influence can be seen if you bother to study it. The base of the renaissance, if you will, was the East. Maybe there would have been a similar enlightenment but the East allowed it to be carried out the way it was.

On-line sources:
"The works of ancient Greek and Hellenistic writers (such as Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, and Plotinus) and Muslim scientists and philosophers (such as Geber, Abulcasis, Alhacen, Avicenna, Avempace, and Averroes), were imported into the Christian world, providing new intellectual material for European scholars.

Greek and Arabic knowledge was not only assimilated from Spain, but also directly from the Middle East. The study of mathematics was flourishing in the Middle East, and mathematical knowledge was brought back by crusaders in the 13th century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance#Assimilation_of_Greek_and_Arabic_knowledge

Early Muslim Influence

Centuries before Renaissance men such as da Vinci experimented with light, optics, or even aeronautics, Muslim thinkers across the extensive Arab Empire developed the foundations of technology that in some instances wouldn’t be explored or fulfilled again until the twentieth century. Muslim thinking and innovation throughout the Arab Empire was, in many ways, a strong foundation of the Renaissance in Europe, via cultural, ambassadorial, and commercial routes across the continent and beginning with Italy. Italy was particularly receptive to such thinking as it entered into the period of classical revival that looked to the knowledge of the Roman Empire for inspiration. The Renaissance throughout Europe would closely resemble Italy, but Italy would ultimately prove to be in the ideal geographical position to welcome the imported Muslim culture.

The remarkable innovations of Muslim thinkers such as Ibn al-Haytham and Abbas ibn Firnas are startling for their time. In A.D. 875 in Córdoba, at the farthest extent of the Arab Empire in present-day Spain, ibn Firnas successfully experimented with a wood, silk, and feather flying apparatus and was airborne for a number of minutes. Ibn Firnas had further experimented in mechanics, time, and, astronomy but, like much of the scientific exploration of the early Muslims, such “intellectual heresy” was often lost to history (Morgan 2007). Ibn al-Haytham, however, was one who published volumes of his work that would eventually be translated into Latin in the thirteenth century. These translations would become readily available to scholars in Italy. For al-Haytham, the world could not be understood philosophically, but it could be measured. Remarkably, he nearly determined the thickness of the earth’s atmosphere and almost articulated the physical concept of gravity. Moreover, he identified the linear quality of light and built an object very much like a camera obscura to help demonstrate it. It would be more than five centuries before the likes of da Vinci, Galileo, and Newton would replicate and then build upon al-Haytham's foundational work (Morgan 2007). Renaissance revisionist historians, on the heels of European fear of the Arab Empire, easily rewrote the Renaissance without acknowledging the golden ages of Muslim power, religion, and intellect. Yet, their indelible impression cannot be overlooked.
http://www.randomhistory.com/1-50/017renaissance.html

Book source? My old history text book?

Evil Cantadia

29-12-2007, 18:46

T
There is a parallel, because Jesus Christ is a favorite target for people who want to bust on Christianity.

Again, there is no paralell between the sex scandal and the Mohammed cartoons because people were criticizing the Church, not blaspheming Jesus. I was not arguing that never in the history of the world has anyone ever blasphemed Jesus.

South Park, as one example, doesn't hesitate, do they?

And when, they do, Christians get outraged (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/14/sbt.01.html). Especially when they did so around Easter.

Muravyets

30-12-2007, 02:16

They were asserting that the Rennaisance was triggered by Islamic culture. I disagreed. I'm still mystified as to why my burden of proof should be any greater than theirs.
Fine, don't then. I was only thinking that when a person is asked for sources, they should be prepared to give them. If the other person fails to give his, then that makes you look better by comparison, doesn't it? But if you can't be bothered to back up your own arguments and instead rely on the shoddy standards of other people to set the bar for you, fine. It's no skin off my nose. Frankly, I don't care what started the goddamned Renaissance, either way.

Here's the thing, when it comes to sourcing on here, and I've been considering starting a thread on the matter. It's pointless, and if you've seen me in other threads then you've probably seen me make this point.
It's a point I disagree with. Most of the sources people post are pointless, but that does not mean sourcing is pointless. You have to use good sources. Now, I don't demand sourcing for everything. Far from it. A good argument can be persuasive without, but still, that doesn't make it pointless.

When someone has a stack of links to sources they think will support them, the opponent always either a)ignores the links b)refutes them (or thinks they're refuting them) or c)provides completely contradictory links of their own. I see absolutely no purpose being served there because it always devolves into a game of "my source is better than yours."
So? The debater wins or loses the argument, not the sources. The sources are there (a) to make the poster's argument look authoritative and (b) to let people who really do want to judge the opposing arguments get access to the supporting materials and/or evidence to make up their own minds who is right.

And of course, Wiki is an easy target as is Fox news.
That's because they are bad sources.

In this particular case, we're talking about some books. I see no reason to dig them out and give a bibliography. What are you going to do, go to the library and get them out and look up the references? I mean, honestly. None of us are really experts in this stuff, so at best we're just tossing around our own opinions and conclusions. To me, either the person you're debating gets the benefit of the doubt or they don't. Tossing around a bunch of references, trying to look all scholarly and wise, all the while being just as closed minded and stubborn as ever, is juvenile and frankly, pretense.
If I cared enough, I might. Or if I was just sufficiently impressed by the list, I might concede the point. And frankly, saying "the person you're debating gets the benefit of the doubt or they don't" is ridiculous. Why bother debating at all then? If you're going just to take everything everyone says at face value, why would you challenge them on anything? I could spin an entire fabric of lies in this forum, and are you telling me you wouldn't challenge me by demanding that I prove what I say is true? Nonsense.

The bottom line is this: You were asked for sources to back up your assertion. You could not provide them. At that point, you should have acknowledged that and withdrawn the point. You could have properly pointed out that the other person also failed to back up their assertions, but you still would not have been able to carry your point over his. The failure of both of you to provide sources should have been the end of that entire sidebar.

EDIT: Ah, and many thanks to Unlucky_and_unbiddable for proving my very point about the value of sources, even if they're not online. :D

The disagreement itself, yes.
Exactly.

Well if you're going to debate the topic...
Snappy conversation-killers like that graph are not arguments. They are merely stylistic ways of making a very brief point. But since they are not arguments, they add nothing to a debate, so they can be ignored.

If you've seen me in a religious topic then I'm sure you've noticed I'm typically engaged with several people at once. Several long winded people. If you weren't one of the ones attacking, then it's unlikely that I'd have much time to ponder your words beyond a quick mental 'thank you' and then once more unto the breach. Just don't assume I'm not paying attention.
I see, so you have been aware that there are people in NSG arguing against anti-Christian bigotry, but for the sake of this thread, you decided to act as if we don't exist?

Well we seem to have th ebeginnings of a mechanism for proving it one way or the other.

Possible, but oftimes It's me against a group and even those who are on my side from an anti-bigotry stance typically don't stay with it as long as I do. It may not be quite as bad as I think, but I still say it's worse than you think. Reality is probably somewhere in between.
I'm starting to wonder whose reality. See the next paragraphs below.

It's not like CHristians have never been persectued, and you don't have to go back to the Roman EMpire to find it. Catholics emmigrated to the colony of Maryland to escape anti-Catholic persecution in England. Ditto for Quakers and a few others. As recently as the mid 1800s an execution order was signed by the Missouri Governor against Mormons. This stuff comes in cycles.
Wow. I find it fascinating that, while you point out that we don't have to go all the way back to Rome, you yourself have to go all the way back to the 17th and 19th centuries. Why didn't you mention the jailing of Christians in China that's happening right now? Or recent incidents against Christians in India? Or the Christians who have been massacred alongside their animist neighbors in Sudan for the last several years? Those would have been the Christain minorities facing oppression in other countries that I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE COMMENT YOU WERE RESPONDING TO.

Oh, wait, maybe you ignored those because they are minorities who do not hold power, and you had to go more than 100 years back to find instances where Christians faced persecution even though they were the majority. Of course, in those cases, it was devout Christians doing the persecuting as well, so...what's your point again?

I don't think the silent ones count for anything one way or the other. Most of them are lurkers anyway.
Yes, I suppose it would be nice to tailor the subject of the study so as to support the desired result of the study. The silent majority of NSG DOES matter for the precise reason I stated. If only a small handful of people are voicing an opinion, there is no legitimate way to argue that it is the opinion of the majority, therefore, if only a few people express bigotry against Christians, you cannot claim that NSG is predominantly anti-Christian. Those silent ones could easily destroy your entire argument.

Do I really need to? You've been around long enough to know some names.
Wow, you really don't like to back up your arguments, do you?

Well I was thinking you and I could independently count posts created on or after January 1. We count only threads we've both participated in, since that way we can ensure that we're both seeing the same data. Rather than count individual posts, maybe take a count of the first, say, 20 replies to an OP and rate them as being hostile, indifferent, or supportive of Christianity/Islam. Maybe do it for 3 or 6 months.
Yeah, except that I have a life and bills to pay.

And no, I would reject your criteria. Since my entire premise is that one's view can be skewed by what one has not seen, it seems ridiculous to only look at the things we have seen. No, I would insist upon a full examination of all of NSG religion threads over the past 3 - 4 years, and all posts within them.

Also, the rating of hostile, indifferent, or supportive of Christianity/Islam is misleading and not germane. The criterion should be the number of posts that express a negative view of Christianity and the number of posts that challenge that view, versus the corresponding numbers for Islam. Remember, one does not have to support a religion in order to oppose bigotry to it. We should also factor in the relative number of threads for each religion.

In addition, I notice you ignored the question of how many posters are involved in this controversy. I would insist also that the names of the posters be recorded, so we may see just how many NSGers express bigotry against Christianity and how many oppose them, and compare that to the total number of NSGers.

However, as you can probably guess, my way, while more thorough, would be much more difficult and time-consuming, and as I say, I have things to do this year.

Right on.

I don't recall his advocating genocide. Admittedly I could have missed something, but the worst I remember out of him was his enjoyment of being in combat. (Not cool but hardly genocide.)
Here you go: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=909879

I searched the forum for User Name "Deep Kimchi" and keyword "genocide" because I felt sure there would be instances of him doing it in threads where people denounced his arguments as supporting "genocide." Result: five pages of old threads. Haven't taken the time to review them all. Enjoy.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I need to get off my chest