NationStates Jolt Archive

The question came up in another thread of which political side of Christianity--the Christian right or Christian left--was, in my own words, more full of "foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists."

I was challenged to name some members of the Christian right who fell into that category. When I did so, I was told they didn't even stack up against the wackos on the left.

So tell me, Generalites: who's crazier? The Christian right, or the Christian left? Name names, post quotes, cite sources, build your case. I want all the evidence that can be found so we can make an informed decision.

Note: Please limit sources to the modern era, no earlier than the 20th century. Christ doesn't count for either side, so don't try it.

The Christian Left are quiet, you never hear about them. However, you always hear about the Christian Right, they never shut up. So my vote is for the Right.

The christian crazies used to be on the left.
William Jennings Bryan(fundie from scopes monkey trial) was a big advocate of social spending for the poor, and blamed the teachings of Charles Darwin for concepts such as extreme Laissez-faire.
Looking at a long term historical context I say they are tied.

Jim Jones. The archbishop of canterbury is pretty whacky, though he's also mostly harmless. Father Coughlin was a bit of a lefty.

Though recently it's been dominated by the right.

Jim Jones. The archbishop of canterbury is pretty whacky, though he's also mostly harmless. Father Coughlin was a bit of a lefty.

Though recently it's been dominated by the right.

Are you talking about this Jim Jones? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones)

Are you talking about this Jim Jones? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones)

Yah, he was a communist or someshit.

Yah, he was a communist or someshit.

Has any right winged Xtian group committed mass suicide?

In my experience, the crazy Christian Right has been much crazier than the Crazy Christian Left. Insert Fred Phelps here.

All Christians are crazy.

All Christians are crazy.

Yeah but it is our craziness that keeps us alive.

All atheists are dumb. :p See I can make generalisations too.

Well all those Northern Irish terrorist groups claimed they were Christian, and they were pretty crazy. I know the Republican ones are/were leftist, but I'm not sure if the Protestant ones are/were right wing or what.

Has any right winged Xtian group committed mass suicide?

Waco was essentially suicide by cop

Fred phelps is christian conservative (I hesitate to use the term "right" for someone who's so wrong...), and I can't think of ANY other christians as crazy as him.

So tell me, Generalites: who's crazier? The Christian right, or the Christian left? Name names, post quotes, cite sources, build your case. I want all the evidence that can be found so we can make an informed decision.

Note: Please limit sources to the modern era, no earlier than the 20th century. Christ doesn't count for either side, so don't try it.

It's difficult some times, but charity demands that Christians try to treat those Christians they disagree with as family members that we need to reason with. I have little doubt that my Christian brothers and sisters on the other side of the political aisle are sincere.

Other than the Hot-Button issues in the news, I hope we're all pretty mellow. Those news media with political agendas seem most responsible for the percieved rift between liberal-moderate-conservative Christians.

It's the media that hypes the likes of Phelps and Pfleger or Wright and Robertson.

I'm not sure. Lately the Christian Right's the one being quite vocal. Annoying, so I'm gonna go with the Christian Right on this one until I research more ont he subject.

I'm not sure. Lately the Christian Right's the one being quite vocal. Annoying, so I'm gonna go with the Christian Right on this one until I research more ont he subject.

Are they really being that vocal? Or is it that the news media portrays them as vocal? What they don't do is back off a lot of their political-religious-ethical beliefs, which can be very un-P.C., which drives the media nuts.

Are they really being that vocal? Or is it that the news media portrays them as vocal? What they don't do is back off a lot of their political-religious-ethical beliefs, which can be very un-P.C., which drives the media nuts.

I find that using the word "un-P.C." is just a very lame excuse for being a dick and deliberately offending people.

Are they really being that vocal? Or is it that the news media portrays them as vocal? What they don't do is back off a lot of their political-religious-ethical beliefs, which can be very un-P.C., which drives the media nuts.

You seem to forget that the media covers them when they're vocal about something. Or rather when they're anal about something, and they are often so. Take Fred Phelps for example. WBC is one of those CR churches that seeks media coverage for what they espouse.

All Christians are crazy.

Seriously, lay off it, please. That's probably something like flamebaiting or trolling, but most importantly, it's just impolite.

Anyway, I generally see the Christian Right wing as much more vocal about their craziness. The fact that I'm a very left wing Christian may, however, bias my view a little.

"Foaming-at-the-mouth"? Definitely Christian Right.

Extreme, fundamentalist? Probably Christian Left, just because the groups most extreme in their rejection of mainstream society have generally been anti-capitalist... but disinclined to impose their views on others.

But in a way this discussion misses the point when it comes to modern politics, because at least in the West the political movements that might loosely be called "the Left" have been more or less wedded to secularism for centuries, while those termed "the Right" have not. The "Christian Left" in this sense is undoubtedly far less fundamentalist and extreme than the Christian Right, simply because part of being part of the Left (understood as a historical movement rather than an ideology) is embracing secularism on some level.

Yeah but it is our craziness that keeps us alive.
Really? And there I was thinking it was homeostasis.
All atheists are dumb. :p See I can make generalisations too.
Well, that could be argued either way. :P
Seriously, lay off it, please. That's probably something like flamebaiting or trolling, but most importantly, it's just impolite.

How is it any worse than saying the Christian right wingers are crazy? Hypocrisy much?

"Foaming-at-the-mouth"? Definitely Christian Right.

Extreme, fundamentalist? Probably Christian Left, just because the groups most extreme in their rejection of mainstream society have generally been anti-capitalist... but disinclined to impose their views on others.

But in a way this discussion misses the point when it comes to modern politics, because at least in the West the political movements that might loosely be called "the Left" have been more or less wedded to secularism for centuries, while those termed "the Right" have not. The "Christian Left" in this sense is undoubtedly far less fundamentalist and extreme than the Christian Right, simply because part of being part of the Left (understood as a historical movement rather than an ideology) is embracing secularism on some level.

That would have been my assumption, too, but I was told that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are every bit as bad as Dobson and Phelps.

That would have been my assumption, too, but I was told that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are every bit as bad as Dobson and Phelps.

That's (a) absurd and wrong and (b) missing the point. Jackson's and Sharpton's faults, such as they are, have little to nothing to do with the nature of their religious belief.

Really? And there I was thinking it was homeostasis.

Well, that could be argued either way. :P

How is it any worse than saying the Christian right wingers are crazy? Hypocrisy much?

Shall I reword?

"The Christian crazies on the right wing tend to be much more vocal than those on the left wing." or "The majority of vocal Christian crazies are right-wing" is approximate the sentiment I intended to convey.

Key points to note - I'm not saying "All Christians are crazy" or even "All right-wing Christians are crazy". In short, I'm not insulting a group, and so it's not hypocritical.

Shall I reword?

"The Christian crazies on the right wing tend to be much more vocal than those on the left wing." or "The majority of vocal Christian crazies are right-wing" is approximate the sentiment I intended to convey.

Key points to note - I'm not saying "All Christians are crazy" or even "All right-wing Christians are crazy". In short, I'm not insulting a group, and so it's not hypocritical.

Well... you are insulting them just as much as me.

Really? And there I was thinking it was homeostasis.

Well let me repharse it is what keeps us living a happy life.

Just ask LG what his life would be like if he were not crazy.

Well, that could be argued either way. :P

hehe

Well... you are insulting them just as much as me.

No he isn't he is talking about some Christians unlike you who are talking about all of them.

Well... you are insulting them just as much as me.

No. If I said "right wing Christians are crazy", then I would be insulting a group, just like you. However, I'm saying that "crazy Christians tend to be right wing" - unless you self-identify as a crazy Christian, and take 'right wing' to be an insult, this isn't insulting.

Edit: Let me put this into logical terms.

If x is a Christian, let
C stand for the proposition that they are crazy
R stand for the proposition that they are right wing
¬a stand for the negation of a
a -> b stand for implication - if a is true, then b is true.
a ~> b stand for a trend linking a and b - if a is true, then b is more likely than ¬b.

You said: x -> C
I said: C ~> R
I explicitly did not say: R -> C

Hence I didn't insult anyone.

Often times they're both the exact same thing. The social issues just happen to currently be highly visible because they involve sex (which sells), or hippies, or something like that, so those get the news media coverage.

In my experience, the crazy Christian Right has been much crazier than the Crazy Christian Left. Insert Fred Phelps here.

Maybe it's just me but when I look at Phelps I don't see him as being left or right, he's off in his own separate category.

Who is on the left any more, the Berrigans?

Didn't one or both of them die already?

What else have you got there, chubbycheeks, the World Council of Churches?

rofl

Nope, the Xn left is defunct.

Anybody willing to take a Xn ID online, or in any identifiable public group, is 99% likely to want to nuke immigrants and keep pregnant momma chained to the kitchen stove.

No. If I said "right wing Christians are crazy", then I would be insulting a group, just like you. However, I'm saying that "crazy Christians tend to be right wing" - unless you self-identify as a crazy Christian, and take 'right wing' to be an insult, this isn't insulting.

Edit: Let me put this into logical terms.

If x is a Christian, let
C stand for the proposition that they are crazy
R stand for the proposition that they are right wing
¬a stand for the negation of a
a -> b stand for implication - if a is true, then b is true.
a ~> b stand for a trend linking a and b - if a is true, then b is more likely than ¬b.

You said: x -> C
I said: C ~> R
I explicitly did not say: R -> C

Hence I didn't insult anyone.
That made no sense whatsoever. Your just trying to cover yourself.

Anybody willing to take a Xn ID online, or in any identifiable public group, is 99% likely to want to nuke immigrants and keep pregnant momma chained to the kitchen stove.

The best thing about these threads is that we get all the generalisations made by people coming out.

The best thing about these threads is that we get all the generalisations made by people coming out.

Yeh, aren't they lovely?

And they feel so good, so purgative, to spout also.

Yeh, aren't they lovely?

And they feel so good, so purgative, to spout also.

Your first post in this thread which is 100% correct

Who is on the left any more, the Berrigans?

Didn't one or both of them die already?

What else have you got there, chubbycheeks, the World Council of Churches?

rofl

Nope, the Xn left is defunct.

Anybody willing to take a Xn ID online, or in any identifiable public group, is 99% likely to want to nuke immigrants and keep pregnant momma chained to the kitchen stove.

Yay, I'm the 1%.

As are, for that matter, all my Christian friends. Including the pro-immigration activists, the LGBT activists, and the feminists.

Now, I know that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but this still doesn't seem to bode well for your generalisations.

That made no sense whatsoever. Your just trying to cover yourself.

Its standard propositional logic. If you can't interpret it, that's not my fault. Admittedly, it may be a little mangled by my memory, so I'll bring it back into words, shall I? I'll trace the logical terminology alongside a nice set of examples for you.

Let's think about Timothy, shall we? Timothy is a Christian (x).

From what you said, the fact that Timothy is a Christian (x), means that it is also true (->) that Timothy is crazy (C). This is insulting Timothy.
I said that, if Timothy is also crazy (C), then Timothy is more likely (~>) to be right wing (R). This is not insulting Timothy.
I explicitly did not say that, if Timothy is right wing (R), then (->) Timothy is crazy (C). This would be insulting Timothy, except I didn't say it.

Now is it clear?

Hell, even if we go back to my first, least clarified post, I still don't insult people.

Seriously, lay off it, please. That's probably something like flamebaiting or trolling, but most importantly, it's just impolite.

Anyway, I generally see the Christian Right wing as much more vocal about their craziness. The fact that I'm a very left wing Christian may, however, bias my view a little.

At worst, I claim there are Christian right wingers who are crazy, and that they tend to be more public about it. I imply that there are also Christian left wingers who are crazy, but they tend to keep quiet about it. I certainly don't say anything like "All Christian right wingers are crazy."

You see now?

Its standard propositional logic. If you can't interpret it, that's not my fault.

It's not because your reasoning made no sense, it's because he's too stupid to understand it.

Stop making everything so complicated.

You insulted em and so did virtually everyone on this thread.

It's not because your reasoning made no sense, it's because he's too stupid to understand it.

Might I suggest keeping it civil?

Stop making everything so complicated.

You insulted em and so did virtually everyone on this thread.

No I didn't. I have been explaining exactly why I didn't insult anyone, and I have been using logic to avoid the confusion which can arise in English. If you would like to show where I did insult anyone, be my guest. I have made what I am saying as clear and unambiguous as I possibly can.

Yay, I'm the 1%.

As are, for that matter, all my Christian friends. Including the pro-immigration activists, the LGBT activists, and the feminists.

Now, I know that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but this still doesn't seem to bode well for your generalisations.



Its standard propositional logic. If you can't interpret it, that's not my fault. Admittedly, it may be a little mangled by my memory, so I'll bring it back into words, shall I? I'll trace the logical terminology alongside a nice set of examples for you.

Let's think about Timothy, shall we? Timothy is a Christian (x).

From what you said, the fact that Timothy is a Christian (x), means that it is also true (->) that Timothy is crazy (C). This is insulting Timothy.
I said that, if Timothy is also crazy (C), then Timothy is more likely (~>) to be right wing (R). This is not insulting Timothy.
I explicitly did not say that, if Timothy is right wing (R), then (->) Timothy is crazy (C). This would be insulting Timothy, except I didn't say it.

Now is it clear?

Hell, even if we go back to my first, least clarified post, I still don't insult people.



At worst, I claim there are Christian right wingers who are crazy, and that they tend to be more public about it. I imply that there are also Christian left wingers who are crazy, but they tend to keep quiet about it. I certainly don't say anything like "All Christian right wingers are crazy."

You see now?

I used to be a lefty too but I got tired and quit.

Maybe the problem is that the media is run by Robert Kraft, and Rupert Murdoch, and Disney. They don't seem to like to let lefties get much press, even in a negative way.

If you are interested in Xn leftist action, I suggest ARISE, with whom I am involved, and the Gemaliel Project, in which Obama participated.

Maybe it's just me but when I look at Phelps I don't see him as being left or right, he's off in his own separate category.

Agreed. He doesn't seem to have any coherent political view beyond extreme homophobia.

Who is on the left any more, the Berrigans?

Them. A number of other Catholic left groups--e.g. Catholic Worker and what's left of Liberation Theology. Most of the Black church. Jim Wallis and Sojourners. Much of mainline Protestantism--the picture is distorted by the vehement conservatism of most Christian evangelicals.

It's not because your reasoning made no sense, it's because he's too stupid to understand it.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? You like following me about calling me thick? That's kind of odd. Seek help.

Has any right winged Xtian group committed mass suicide?

No, they usually specialize in mass homicide. :p

Well let me repharse it is what keeps us living a happy life.

Just ask LG what his life would be like if he were not crazy.

I'd probably be a physicist, thrice divorced and on a bland diet so as not to aggravate my stomach ulcer.

For the most part I think the Christian Right and in my opinion the do a disservice to rest of the community. You don't hear from the Christian Left all that much maybe if we did we would hear less from the Right.

I also object to Cult people being lumped in with the left.

Waco etc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left

Scroll down to the bottom I don't recognize over half of the names?

No, they usually specialize in mass homicide. :p

Very true and besides the Right has nice legal wars for all that.

Who is on the left any more, the Berrigans?

Didn't one or both of them die already?

What else have you got there, chubbycheeks, the World Council of Churches?

rofl

Nope, the Xn left is defunct.

Anybody willing to take a Xn ID online, or in any identifiable public group, is 99% likely to want to nuke immigrants and keep pregnant momma chained to the kitchen stove.

They are there it just they never say anything. They need a spokesperson. They need to get everyones attention something like "Driving SUVs is a mortal sin" then wait for the media to show up and then say now that we got your attention here is what we really think.

I imagine that the nuttiest christians would try and restrict social freedoms to ONLY the things that are explicitly allowed in the bible (and keep in mind that the bible never says "Thou shalt go to NSG!" >_>). That would restrict them to being authoritarian or conservative.

Has any right winged Xtian group committed mass suicide?

Some groups teach that the ONLY acceptable healing is prayer. Most likely some of them were around and right-wing when epidemics (such as the spanish flu of 1918) hit. So it's not a *literal* mass suicide, but...

EDIT: For those of you who remember Ava Worthington (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/parents-indicted-in-faith_n_93903.html), their family's denomination (Followers Of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ)) has a death rate among children TWENTY SIX times the national average.

That's (a) absurd and wrong and (b) missing the point. Jackson's and Sharpton's faults, such as they are, have little to nothing to do with the nature of their religious belief.

More info please. How is it absurd and wrong to say personages such as Rev. Jackson (who has made anti-semetic remarks and shook down businesses because he didn't think enough blacks were in executive positions),Rev. Sharpton (who slandered the NYPD, Rev. Wright and Michael Pfleger (who pound the same anti-American rhetoric) are not similar to Phelps?

How does it miss the point? Being in a pastoral position, they should be doing their best to be role-models of what a Christ centered life should be.

How is it absurd and wrong to say personages such as Rev. Jackson (who has made anti-semetic remarks and shook down businesses because he didn't think enough blacks were in executive positions),Rev. Sharpton (who slandered the NYPD, Rev. Wright and Michael Pfleger (who pound the same anti-American rhetoric) are not similar to Phelps?

Um... because it shows a complete lack of a sense of proportion or reason?

Phelps' bigotry goes so far beyond the far milder (and quickly apologized-for) anti-Semitic slurs of Sharpton and Jackson as to be unworthy of mention in the same context. The fact that you disagree with the rhetoric and the tactics of Sharpton and Jackson in challenging police and business racism does not put them on the same plane as Phelps, whose objectives are far more abhorrent and whose tactics are far more offensive by any reasonable standard. Wright's "anti-American rhetoric" falls so far short of welcoming the deaths of American soldiers (and protesting their funerals!) that it is astonishing anyone actually concerned for "anti-Americanism" would conflate the two.

How does it miss the point? Being in a pastoral position, they should be doing their best to be role-models of what a Christ centered life should be.

So? As Jesus himself suggested, most religious public figures are pretty disgusting and opportunistic people morally; religion is a racket.

But we are concerned here for religious movements, not for particular individuals, and Sharpton and Jackson, in the respects for which you criticize them, could just as well be secular political figures. Their stances and their actions are not religious in character.

All Christians are crazy.
That, sir, is trolling.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

It's not because your reasoning made no sense, it's because he's too stupid to understand it.
Ahem.

Eh, even though the Christian left can be crazy, the Right has a bit more foam around its mouth at the moment.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? You like following me about calling me thick? That's kind of odd. Seek help.
Ahem. You too.

Ahem. You too.

Kat, did you notice that this

It's not because your reasoning made no sense, it's because he's [RoI] too stupid to understand it.

was posted with basically no provocation. Seems at least on a par with RoI's comment you just posted about.

What's the difference between the christian right and the christian left? Simple, the christian left remembers that whole bit about how christians are supposed to be "christ like". You know, help the poor, feed the homeless, promote rehabilitation over punishment, forgiveness of vengence, remember that "love they neighbor as you would love thyself" bit, and keep in mind that whole "thou shalt not kill" line also applies to foreigners and bad people.

The christian right on the other hand preaches intolerance, bigotry, sexism, and a lust for war. They call upon the wrath of their god when people deviate from their warped views of morality, and await armaggedon with a glea that can only be described as the worst kind of sadism. Which as a general rule makes the christian part of "christian right"....not.

Um... because it shows a complete lack of a sense of proportion or reason?
Why, because he's not politically correct?


Phelps' bigotry goes so far beyond the far milder (and quickly apologized-for) anti-Semitic slurs of Sharpton and Jackson as to be unworthy of mention in the same context.Not so. Those apologies were politically motivated, otherwise they never would have happened.

The fact that you disagree with the rhetoric and the tactics of Sharpton and Jackson in challenging police and business racism does not put them on the same plane as Phelps, whose objectives are far more abhorrent and whose tactics are far more offensive by any reasonable standard.
So, in your opinion, lying about a rape to incite a race riot is honorable? Do you believe extortion is honorable? Phelps is crazy. He doesn't nearly command the audience that Sharpton or Jackson do.
Wright's "anti-American rhetoric" falls so far short of welcoming the deaths of American soldiers (and protesting their funerals!) that it is astonishing anyone actually concerned for "anti-Americanism" would conflate the two.
You sure about that? Wright seemed to think that September 11, 2001 was divine retribution for how America was screwing things up. 3,000+ people dead and not a word of sympathy for the victims from him. He seems to think they deserved to die.
So? As Jesus himself suggested, most religious public figures are pretty disgusting and opportunistic people morally; religion is a racket.
Jesus suggested that the Pharisees had lost their way by being lawyers of the law and by being forgetful of God's love. Sometimes he was harsh in his choice of words.

Also, it's pretty offensive that you're now your attacking the idea that anyone, especially someone in a pastoral position, ought to do their best to live a Christ centered life or be a good role model.
But we are concerned here for religious movements, not for particular individuals, and Sharpton and Jackson, in the respects for which you criticize them, could just as well be secular political figures. Their stances and their actions are not religious in character.
And you think Phelps is a movement? If you're not talking about individuals then you've invalidated your argument.

So, who's leading the Christian Left Movement and who's leading the Christian Right movement?

I have to say this is the first time I've come across the term 'Christian Left'. I have no idea who these people are meant to be. I saw someone mention the Irish Republicans, but I've always perceived their Christian identity to a much smaller part than their national identity.

Not so. Those apologies were politically motivated, otherwise they never would have happened.

...so? That makes them politically opportunistic, not religiously extreme.

At the root of our dispute seems to be a fundamental difference in approach. I am attempting to answer the actual question of this thread, about whether the Christian Left or the Christian Right is more crazily fundamentalist. You seem bent on mounting a moral condemnation of Jackson and Sharpton that has tangential relevance at best to this topic. Judge them as you will; I couldn't care less. But don't pretend that they are religious extremists on par with Phelps.

Phelps is crazy. He doesn't nearly command the audience that Sharpton or Jackson do.

Which, if anything, only strengthens my point.

You sure about that? Wright seemed to think that September 11, 2001 was divine retribution for how America was screwing things up.

No, he seemed to think that which is true, that it was the natural consequence of our actions around the world. And the connection he drew makes far more sense (and is far less religiously extreme, however politically incorrect) than that made by, say, Jerry Falwell on the same topic--who unlike Wright was actually a prominent public figure of his particular branch of Christianity.

Jesus suggested that the Pharisees had lost their way by being lawyers of the law and by being forgetful of God's love. Sometimes he was harsh in his choice of words.

Read the Sermon on the Mount. Note what he says about praying in public.

Also, it's pretty offensive that you're now your attacking the idea that anyone, especially someone in a pastoral position, ought to do their best to live a Christ centered life or be a good role model.

Who said anything about "ought"? I'm talking about "is." And I'm sorry if you're offended by the idea that other people don't share your particular values, but that's the way of the world.

And you think Phelps is a movement?

Actually, no, not really.

If you'd bothered to actually follow the line of discussion, you'd note (a) that I was responding to a comparison between Phelps and Sharpton/Jackson made by someone else and (b) I have already agreed with another person who has remarked that Phelps is not really classifiable as "right" or "left."

It is, however, the case that Phelps' extreme homophobia is explicitly religious in character, so even if he does not characterize the Christian Right (or Left) he does qualify as a religious extremist--unlike Jackson or Sharpton.

I have to say this is the first time I've come across the term 'Christian Left'. I have no idea who these people are meant to be.

Google "Liberation Theology" for a start.

On a late note, I wish to apologize for dragging Ava Worthington's family back into the limelight (well, the NSG limelight) when I could have simply used the faith healing death (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_re_us/us_prayer_death;_ylt=AnoGoTBT.6cuxxNWGJlyB8FH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5anFiYzNlBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN5bi1tb3N0LXZpZ XdlZARzbGsDc2lja2dpcmxzbW9t) from a story printed on yahoo today.

And no, it;s not chemo boy (although odds are he'll also die if the cops don't find him soon)

Ahem. You too.

Seriously?

That, sir, is trolling.




This thread is about whether christians are crazy.

This thread is about whether christians are crazy.

That is not the issue, CI. The issue is which side, the left or the right, is more vocal about topics. Once again, be wary of generalizations.

That is not the issue, CI. The issue is which side, the left or the right, is more vocal about topics. Once again, be wary of generalizations.

Oh?


So tell me, Generalites: who's crazier?

Oh?

Trust me, Ryadn is not one to make generalizations.

Trust me, Ryadn is not one to make generalizations.

I never said that.

Has any right winged Xtian group committed mass suicide?

Besides the Branch Davidians?

To me, any time a group of fundamentalists want to take themselves out and NOT anyone else, I say "long live freedom" and get on with my life. It doesn't matter which side of the spectrum they inhabit, if they're fixin' not to inhabit it, or the world, any longer.

Besides the Branch Davidians?

To me, any time a group of fundamentalists want to take themselves out and NOT anyone else, I say "long live freedom" and get on with my life. It doesn't matter which side of the spectrum they inhabit, if they're fixin' not to inhabit it, or the world, any longer.

Heaven's Gate was always my favorite.

Google "Liberation Theology" for a start.

Most of those people haven't been active since before he was born.

Besides the Branch Davidians?

To me, any time a group of fundamentalists want to take themselves out and NOT anyone else, I say "long live freedom" and get on with my life. It doesn't matter which side of the spectrum they inhabit, if they're fixin' not to inhabit it, or the world, any longer.

You know the Koreshians (the branch is an actual church not affiliated with those nuts) were a socialist religious community. Seems more like yet another lefty religious wacko group kills themselves.

You know the Koreshians (the branch is an actual church not affiliated with those nuts) were a socialist religious community. Seems more like yet another lefty religious wacko group kills themselves.The political views of those churches are intensely right wing.

So tell me, Generalites: who's crazier? The Christian right, or the Christian left? Name names, post quotes, cite sources, build your case. I want all the evidence that can be found so we can make an informed decision.

the extremests... they are the wacko ones. ones soo far to the edge that everyone else is wrong.

The political views of those churches are intensely right wing.

but the economic were left wing.