"In 1981, Bell had just moved to Little Axe and enrolled her children
in the local public school system. At that time, school officials were
allowing a teacher-sponsored student group called the Son Shine Club
to gather before school to pray.
Though the fundamentalist Baptist meetings were supposedly voluntary,
the school buses dropped students off 30 minutes before classes
started. Those who were not attending the religious meetings had to
wait outside the building, sometimes in the rain or cold. The Son
Shine sessions also extended into first-hour class time, Bell said."
"After contacting the ACLU and filing a lawsuit, Bell and McCord
became the subjects of hatred and even violence. Bell's house was
burned down by a firebomb. McCord's 12-year-old son's prize goats were
slashed and mutilated with a knife. Bell was assaulted by a school
cafeteria worker who smashed her head repeatedly against a car door.
(School authorities praised the cafeteria worker, and she was forced
to pay a $10 fine and Bell's hospital bills, community residents
raised donations on the assailant's behalf.) McCord and Bell were both
mailed their own obituaries."
"'When I began the suit, I just wanted to stop the religious services
at school, but I supported the idea of nonsectarian prayer in the
classroom during school,' McCord told the National Catholic Reporter.
'Since I've seen what religion can do to a community, I don't support
any religious observance in school.'"
> "In 1981, Bell had just moved to Little Axe and enrolled her children
> in the local public school system. At that time, school officials were
> allowing a teacher-sponsored student group called the Son Shine Club
> to gather before school to pray.
> Though the fundamentalist Baptist meetings were supposedly voluntary,
> the school buses dropped students off 30 minutes before classes
> started. Those who were not attending the religious meetings had to
> wait outside the building, sometimes in the rain or cold. The Son
> Shine sessions also extended into first-hour class time, Bell said."
> "After contacting the ACLU and filing a lawsuit, Bell and McCord
> became the subjects of hatred and even violence. Bell's house was
> burned down by a firebomb. McCord's 12-year-old son's prize goats were
> slashed and mutilated with a knife. Bell was assaulted by a school
> cafeteria worker who smashed her head repeatedly against a car door.
> (School authorities praised the cafeteria worker, and she was forced
> to pay a $10 fine and Bell's hospital bills, community residents
> raised donations on the assailant's behalf.) McCord and Bell were both
> mailed their own obituaries."
> "'When I began the suit, I just wanted to stop the religious services
> at school, but I supported the idea of nonsectarian prayer in the
> classroom during school,' McCord told the National Catholic Reporter.
> 'Since I've seen what religion can do to a community, I don't support
> any religious observance in school.'"
> I'm amazed that these two individuals continued the battle in the face
> of such adversity. Thankfully, the federal court of appeals ruled in
> their favor (after the district court denied them relief). Their
> stories are truly horrific. It is ironic that both Bell and McCord
> were then active Christians, though not of the "preferred" sect in
> that area of Oklahoma.
> The horrors that people commit in the name of Christianity would shock
> anyone with a moral conscience. And I speak of the horrors that
> Christians of the modern day in the United States commit.
> Where are the Christians standing up to support there two families
> when other professed Christians attack them physically and threatened
> their lives? No, they had to turn to the ACLU for help.
> "In 1981, Bell had just moved to Little Axe and enrolled her children
> in the local public school system. At that time, school officials were
> allowing a teacher-sponsored student group called the Son Shine Club
> to gather before school to pray.
> Though the fundamentalist Baptist meetings were supposedly voluntary,
> the school buses dropped students off 30 minutes before classes
> started. Those who were not attending the religious meetings had to
> wait outside the building, sometimes in the rain or cold. The Son
> Shine sessions also extended into first-hour class time, Bell said."
> "After contacting the ACLU and filing a lawsuit, Bell and McCord
> became the subjects of hatred and even violence. Bell's house was
> burned down by a firebomb. McCord's 12-year-old son's prize goats were
> slashed and mutilated with a knife. Bell was assaulted by a school
> cafeteria worker who smashed her head repeatedly against a car door.
> (School authorities praised the cafeteria worker, and she was forced
> to pay a $10 fine and Bell's hospital bills, community residents
> raised donations on the assailant's behalf.) McCord and Bell were both
> mailed their own obituaries."
> "'When I began the suit, I just wanted to stop the religious services
> at school, but I supported the idea of nonsectarian prayer in the
> classroom during school,' McCord told the National Catholic Reporter.
> 'Since I've seen what religion can do to a community, I don't support
> any religious observance in school.'"
Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
"bad" christians.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
> to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
> believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> "bad" christians.
Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
religion in doing so?
> "In 1981, Bell had just moved to Little Axe and enrolled her children
> in the local public school system. At that time, school officials were
> allowing a teacher-sponsored student group called the Son Shine Club
> to gather before school to pray.
> Though the fundamentalist Baptist meetings were supposedly voluntary,
> the school buses dropped students off 30 minutes before classes
> started. Those who were not attending the religious meetings had to
> wait outside the building, sometimes in the rain or cold. The Son
> Shine sessions also extended into first-hour class time, Bell said."
> "After contacting the ACLU and filing a lawsuit, Bell and McCord
> became the subjects of hatred and even violence. Bell's house was
> burned down by a firebomb. McCord's 12-year-old son's prize goats were
> slashed and mutilated with a knife. Bell was assaulted by a school
> cafeteria worker who smashed her head repeatedly against a car door.
> (School authorities praised the cafeteria worker, and she was forced
> to pay a $10 fine and Bell's hospital bills, community residents
> raised donations on the assailant's behalf.) McCord and Bell were both
> mailed their own obituaries."
> "'When I began the suit, I just wanted to stop the religious services
> at school, but I supported the idea of nonsectarian prayer in the
> classroom during school,' McCord told the National Catholic Reporter.
> 'Since I've seen what religion can do to a community, I don't support
> any religious observance in school.'"
> On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't
> limited
> > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those
> who
> > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > "bad" christians.
> Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> religion in doing so?
I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these christians
acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish extremists when
people disagree with their extremist positions.
And there's not single "loving" thing about it.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't
> > limited
> > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those
> > who
> > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > > "bad" christians.
> > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > religion in doing so?
> I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these christians
> acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish extremists when
> people disagree with their extremist positions.
Except that people acting on other supposedly noble causes do the same
thing. Basically, this seems to be a feature of extremism, not
religion or religious faith.
> On Nov 28, 7:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't
> > > limited
> > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those
> > > who
> > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > > > "bad" christians.
> > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > > religion in doing so?
> > I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these christians
> > acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish extremists when
> > people disagree with their extremist positions.
> Except that people acting on other supposedly noble causes do the same
> thing. Basically, this seems to be a feature of extremism, not
> religion or religious faith.
It's a human problem.
This isn't just about nontheists being suppressed by theists. Framed
in constitutional secularism we try to diffuse the threat of
beligerence that religion seems to invite, but the battle of sectarian
minorities, moderates & apostates for their rights is universal. In
Buddhist-dominated Burma, Christians are suppressed and discriminated
against, in Sri Lanka it's the poor Tamils getting the shaft by the
Buddhist majority. In India the Dalits (formerly and now once again
Buddhists) are fully suppressed under the Brahman-lead Hindu caste
system. There's the ultra-orthodox stone throwing Jews in Israel. And
then there's Islam.....
The problem is completely crystalized in that in this Okla. town, mob
rule threatened against members of a different Christian sect.
Xenophobic parochialism is a terrible problem in of itself, tribalist
entitlement and paranoia is the devil here and Xians need to have this
demonstrated to them that they are violating their own rules when they
seek to violate secular guidelines & afflict minorities with opprobria
and sanctions which are grossly un-Christian.
And if that won't stop them, then shame them where their wallet is.
On Nov 28, 9:09 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:06 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> The problem is completely crystalized in that in this Okla. town, mob
> rule threatened against members of a different Christian sect.
> Xenophobic parochialism is a terrible problem in of itself, tribalist
> entitlement and paranoia is the devil here and Xians need to have this
> demonstrated to them that they are violating their own rules when they
> seek to violate secular guidelines & afflict minorities with opprobria
> and sanctions which are grossly un-Christian.
> And if that won't stop them, then shame them where their wallet is.
And if that won't stop them, beat the crap out of them?
Or did you not read my link showing the reaction of some people to
what they feel are Christians "afflicting minorities"?
> On Nov 28, 9:09 am, leebert <sregdor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 8:06 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > The problem is completely crystalized in that in this Okla. town, mob
> > rule threatened against members of a different Christian sect.
> > Xenophobic parochialism is a terrible problem in of itself, tribalist
> > entitlement and paranoia is the devil here and Xians need to have this
> > demonstrated to them that they are violating their own rules when they
> > seek to violate secular guidelines & afflict minorities with opprobria
> > and sanctions which are grossly un-Christian.
> > And if that won't stop them, then shame them where their wallet is.
> And if that won't stop them, beat the crap out of them?
> Or did you not read my link showing the reaction of some people to
> what they feel are Christians "afflicting minorities"?
Yes, I just did.....
And you are incorrect, however, in drawing too close a parallel. First
of all the article is conflating Canadian hate crime laws with the
USA's jurisprudence. In the case of California, there were no
government institution afflicting opposition groups with sanctions.
The dictatorship of the majority is a greater risk, esp. WRT to
religion (as spelled out in the constitution), but also under the
broader extension of equal protection. However most of the anti-
Christian actions cited were during a contentious political battle
surrounding the proposition against gay marriage, and were not part of
a separation issue. And we've yet to see a broader pattern, esp. a
gov't-sanctioned one, but were there a broader pattern then equal
protection could well apply and require intervention.
FWIW I'm not for "hate crime" laws, so you won't get any traction
there with me, they are skewed on what constitutes "hate," but the
assumption is the law should protect minority interests. So although
the disparity in enforcement can be readily foreseen, you'd still need
a clear and governmentally-supported pattern established for equal
protection or a prolonged pattern of "hate crimes" under those
statutes.
I've been for gay marriage since the 1980's when I surprised our gay
friends telling them that it made sense, that they should be able to
get married. Few people were talking about it then and it took 15
years for the idea to really get some footing. So I'm dismayed to read
gay protesters have become so militant, but I also feel this has to be
seen in context.
> On Nov 28, 7:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
> > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't
> > > limited
> > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst
> those
> > > who
> > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe
> that
> > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not
> just
> > > > "bad" christians.
> > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > > religion in doing so?
> > I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these christians
> > acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish extremists
> when
> > people disagree with their extremist positions.
> Except that people acting on other supposedly noble causes do the same
> thing. Basically, this seems to be a feature of extremism, not
> religion or religious faith.
The article shows that it is clearly also a feature of extremist religious
faith.
The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore this and
are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to deal
with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying other
people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to excuse it.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 7:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > >wrote:
> > > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > wrote:
> > > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't
> > > > limited
> > > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst
> > those
> > > > who
> > > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe
> > that
> > > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not
> > just
> > > > > "bad" christians.
> > > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > > > religion in doing so?
> > > I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these christians
> > > acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish extremists
> > when
> > > people disagree with their extremist positions.
> > Except that people acting on other supposedly noble causes do the same
> > thing. Basically, this seems to be a feature of extremism, not
> > religion or religious faith.
> The article shows that it is clearly also a feature of extremist religious
> faith.
Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by pointing
out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion in
general if one wanted to address that.
> The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore this and
> are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to deal
> with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying other
> people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if anti-theists
weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
encourage us to join forces with you.
> It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists not
only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us to
do to oppose or stop them?
> Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to excuse it.
I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
Humans are dogmatic. Humans are extremist. Your focus on religious
dogmatics and extremists reveals that you are not really interested in
stopping those things, but instead on eliminating religion. Even if
we managed to eliminate all of the extremism, I am certain that would
not satisfy you.
> On Nov 28, 10:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 7:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Treebeard <
> allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this
> isn't
> > > > > limited
> > > > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst
> > > those
> > > > > who
> > > > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to
> believe
> > > that
> > > > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and
> not
> > > just
> > > > > > "bad" christians.
> > > > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > > > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a
> Abrahamic
> > > > > religion in doing so?
> > > > I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these
> christians
> > > > acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish
> extremists
> > > when
> > > > people disagree with their extremist positions.
> > > Except that people acting on other supposedly noble causes do the same
> > > thing. Basically, this seems to be a feature of extremism, not
> > > religion or religious faith.
> > The article shows that it is clearly also a feature of extremist
> religious
> > faith.
> Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by pointing
> out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion in
> general if one wanted to address that.
> > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore this
> and
> > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to deal
> > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying
> other
> > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if anti-theists
> weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> encourage us to join forces with you.
Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their religious
extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact no
distinction in this case.
It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
> > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists not
> only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us to
> do to oppose or stop them?
Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
> > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to excuse
> it.
> I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes I'll
give that some consideration.
And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their malicious
hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that some
consideration.
> Humans are dogmatic. Humans are extremist. Your focus on religious
> dogmatics and extremists reveals that you are not really interested in
> stopping those things, but instead on eliminating religion. Even if
> we managed to eliminate all of the extremism, I am certain that would
> not satisfy you.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
The problem is not racism versus nonracism, it is extremists on both
sides, particularly those extremist nonracists who blame all racists
for the consequences of racism.
On Nov 28, 10:19 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 10:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > >wrote:
> > > > On Nov 28, 7:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Treebeard <
> > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this
> > isn't
> > > > > > limited
> > > > > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst
> > > > those
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to
> > believe
> > > > that
> > > > > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and
> > not
> > > > just
> > > > > > > "bad" christians.
> > > > > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > > > > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > > > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > > > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a
> > Abrahamic
> > > > > > religion in doing so?
> > > > > I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these
> > christians
> > > > > acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish
> > extremists
> > > > when
> > > > > people disagree with their extremist positions.
> > > > Except that people acting on other supposedly noble causes do the same
> > > > thing. Basically, this seems to be a feature of extremism, not
> > > > religion or religious faith.
> > > The article shows that it is clearly also a feature of extremist
> > religious
> > > faith.
> > Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by pointing
> > out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> > It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion in
> > general if one wanted to address that.
> Not when the religion is the source of it.
> > > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore this
> > and
> > > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to deal
> > > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying
> > other
> > > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> > We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if anti-theists
> > weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> > Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> > and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> > that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> > because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> > encourage us to join forces with you.
> Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
> counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their religious
> extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact no
> distinction in this case.
> It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
> > > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> > They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists not
> > only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us to
> > do to oppose or stop them?
> Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
> > > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to excuse
> > it.
> > I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> > how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
> When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes I'll
> give that some consideration.
> And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their malicious
> hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that some
> consideration.
> > Humans are dogmatic. Humans are extremist. Your focus on religious
> > dogmatics and extremists reveals that you are not really interested in
> > stopping those things, but instead on eliminating religion. Even if
> > we managed to eliminate all of the extremism, I am certain that would
> > not satisfy you.
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 28, 12:19 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> > Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by pointing
> > out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> > It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion in
> > general if one wanted to address that.
> Not when the religion is the source of it.
But religion is not the source of extremism.
Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
extremist religion?
> > > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore this
> > and
> > > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to deal
> > > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying
> > other
> > > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> > We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if anti-theists
> > weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> > Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> > and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> > that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> > because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> > encourage us to join forces with you.
> Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
> counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their religious
> extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact no
> distinction in this case.
Yes, because it IS extremism, and no better or no worse than any
other.
The religious extremists cited in the first article are no better and
no worse than the extremists cited in my article. That is my stance,
and it is a consistent one. Do you deny this? If I can condemn
religious extremism -- by insisting, as I have repeatedly, that
atheists are not immoral and that non-believers shouldn't be killed --
can you not also condemn the extremism in some of the same-sex
marriage proponents, at a minimum by accepting them as extremists
equally as bad as the religious ones? And can you not accept my
personal faith and the faith of non-religious extremists is proof that
faith is not the problem here, since my and their faith WILL NOT ALLOW
THOSE ACTIONS?
Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that we
aren't extremists?
Or do you need the sop, the insistence from all theists no matter how
moral they act to go through every single post that is made and every
instance of horrific extremism and say "Yes, we think that's bad" even
though most people just simply think that that is bad and we generally
assume that they do? If you require this, then yes, I think that
religious extremism is bad. I think that killing people and insisting
that that was done because you are insisting that they are not
Christian and therefore not saved is utterly horrific. I actually
consider that FAR more horrific than you do, because to me when they
use the justification of, say, them not being saved to justify either
doing it or it being okay to do it STOPS them from being "saved". So
if you have to convert to be saved -- which I do not believe -- then
you stop them from repenting their sins and coming to the
understanding and being converted. If that was true -- and, again,
most of them believe it but I do not -- that's DAMNING THEM TO HELL!
That's horrific beyond their just being killed. Christians should be
avoiding killing non-believers as much as possible.
To quote Bryan Adams "Do I have to say the words?" And how many times
do I have to say them before you'll accept that I believe them.
> It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
What would you like me to do? Am I required to run around attacking
and insisting that other sects or religions are wrong and evil and
make it my personal Crusade to continue doing that? Why isn't my
simply acting on and talking about my own views enough?
Do we have to go to war against them and start killing them before
you'll believe that we oppose them?
> > > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> > They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists not
> > only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us to
> > do to oppose or stop them?
> Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
Considering that, as I said, we argue that they are incorrect this is
a blatant lie. You KNOW that many liberal and non-extremist theists
write books and papers and newsgroup posts about the underlying
justifications all the time. Many are in the various churches and
working to change policies for the better, and many of them have
indeed changed for the better. Do you need blood before you'll accept
our actions as being anything more than silence? Or do you just need
us to renounce the faith that we see no need to renounce since we
don't see it actually leading to that interpretation?
> > > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to excuse
> > it.
> > I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> > how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
> When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes I'll
> give that some consideration.
So if someone uses evolution to justify eugenics -- which is
shockingly easy to do (and yes, I'm aware that there are other ways to
justify eugenics, but there are other ways to justify hurting people
as well as I showed in this thread) -- should I insist that all
scientists forswear all eugenics repeatedly or else I will insist that
evolutionary theory and supporting it causes eugenics?
You can see why forcing people to oppose the views of other people who
are -- at least in the minds of the original people -- grossly
misinterpreting the principle they are appealing to is ridiculous.
> And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their malicious
> hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that some
> consideration.
Since people are extremist over many issues, religious are otherwise,
my argument is TRUE. That argument cannot be dishonest when it is
true. Religion does not cause extremism; some extremists are
extremist about religion. I would like to oppose all extremism; I am
sorry you do not feel the same way, since you want to slice it up into
categories and insist that the extremisms cannot have the same root
cause, that is something in the psychological make-up of the humans
who are extremists.
This, by the way, is why Treebeard is "ignoring" me and several other
atheist posters who he insists don't want to "learn" because they
refute his obviously fallacious garbage. He is militantly wrong, based
on premises no more substantiated than that of the so-called
"extremists". The fact that Osama bin Laden is probably more
ideologically consistent than Treebeard would be, to him, proof that
he's an "extremist". The central difference between bin Laden and
Treebeard is that bin Laden can indirectly perpetuate consequences and
still acknowledge responsibility, whereas Treebeard can't, because bin
Laden is a better person than Treebeard is. Treebeard wears his
hypocrisy like a badge of honor. The fact that he defends the Bible
but criticizes the posts I make to make fun of him is proof, in his
mind, that he deserves respect. "Extremism" is not something you can
expect to be concretely defined by Treebeard. The argument that
"extremists on all sides are equally wrong" is so funny, because that
would mean that those who are "extremely" right are equally wrong to
those who are "extremely" wrong.
"Since people are extremist over many issues, religious are otherwise,
my argument is TRUE. That argument cannot be dishonest when it is
true." -- Treebeard
The smarter posters on this group have gotten the point that the posts
that I have explicitly said are satirical are satires of those like
Treebeard/Allan. He's an idiot, goes on these "I'm right because I'm
right, and you're wrong because you disagree with me" tangents and
acts _sincere_ about them. More than anyone, he exemplifies the
deranged double-standards of someone who has been rotted to the inside
by delusion. The fact that he helps perpetuate a doctrine that
actually, instead of satirically, encourages violence and its results
but turns around and attacks my posts makes him think he couldn't
possibly be an "extremist" because he believes, as long as he
contradicts himself, he can't be "extremely" anything. But he is an
extremist. He's an extremist of hypocrisy.
The Christians in the OP learned something that we can't expect from
Allan: they learned that if they were encouraging something, they
would be partially responsible for its consequences, and had a crisis
of conscience. This "extremist" binge is clearly a way to get out of
this moral dillema: you can encourage racism, sexism, theism,
whatever--whenever what you perpetuate has consequences you are
embarassed about, you can say it is not a result of the perpetuation
of what directly and explicitly caused the consequences, but of the
"extremism of all people", which includes the "extremism" of anyone
who criticizes you for perpetuating the root of the problem in the
first place.
Of course, any honest poster who has been paying attention knows that
I don't actually think all theists are the same. The theists in the OP
were capable of learning--when it came down to it, they didn't
rationalize like Allan does. Unfortunately, most theists aren't like
them, and no amount of bloodshed will influence those like Allan to
take the right side of this debate. Those like Allan will always say,
"Any negative results of what I perpetuate are the result of
'extremists', and anyone who opposes me for perpetuating it in the
first place is an 'extremist', therefore my enemies are at fault for
everything I do."
On Nov 28, 10:21 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> The problem is not racism versus nonracism, it is extremists on both
> sides, particularly those extremist nonracists who blame all racists
> for the consequences of racism.
> On Nov 28, 10:19 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 10:59 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 28, 7:06 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Treebeard <
> > > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this
> > > isn't
> > > > > > > limited
> > > > > > > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to
> > > believe
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and
> > > not
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > "bad" christians.
> > > > > > > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > > > > > > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > > > > > > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > > > > > > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a
> > > Abrahamic
> > > > > > > religion in doing so?
> > > > > > I am saying, and it's quite clear in the article, that these
> > > christians
> > > > > > acted based on their christian faith as do muslim and jewish
> > > extremists
> > > > > when
> > > > > > people disagree with their extremist positions.
> > > > > Except that people acting on other supposedly noble causes do the same
> > > > > thing. Basically, this seems to be a feature of extremism, not
> > > > > religion or religious faith.
> > > > The article shows that it is clearly also a feature of extremist
> > > religious
> > > > faith.
> > > Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by pointing
> > > out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> > > It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion in
> > > general if one wanted to address that.
> > Not when the religion is the source of it.
> > > > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore this
> > > and
> > > > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to deal
> > > > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying
> > > other
> > > > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> > > We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if anti-theists
> > > weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> > > Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> > > and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> > > that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> > > because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> > > encourage us to join forces with you.
> > Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
> > counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their religious
> > extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact no
> > distinction in this case.
> > It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
> > > > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> > > They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists not
> > > only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us to
> > > do to oppose or stop them?
> > Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
> > > > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to excuse
> > > it.
> > > I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> > > how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
> > When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes I'll
> > give that some consideration.
> > And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their malicious
> > hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that some
> > consideration.
> > > Humans are dogmatic. Humans are extremist. Your focus on religious
> > > dogmatics and extremists reveals that you are not really interested in
> > > stopping those things, but instead on eliminating religion. Even if
> > > we managed to eliminate all of the extremism, I am certain that would
> > > not satisfy you.
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
> "In 1981, Bell had just moved to Little Axe and enrolled her children
> in the local public school system. At that time, school officials were
> allowing a teacher-sponsored student group called the Son Shine Club
> to gather before school to pray.
> Though the fundamentalist Baptist meetings were supposedly voluntary,
> the school buses dropped students off 30 minutes before classes
> started. Those who were not attending the religious meetings had to
> wait outside the building, sometimes in the rain or cold. The Son
> Shine sessions also extended into first-hour class time, Bell said."
> "After contacting the ACLU and filing a lawsuit, Bell and McCord
> became the subjects of hatred and even violence. Bell's house was
> burned down by a firebomb. McCord's 12-year-old son's prize goats were
> slashed and mutilated with a knife. Bell was assaulted by a school
> cafeteria worker who smashed her head repeatedly against a car door.
> (School authorities praised the cafeteria worker, and she was forced
> to pay a $10 fine and Bell's hospital bills, community residents
> raised donations on the assailant's behalf.) McCord and Bell were both
> mailed their own obituaries."
> "'When I began the suit, I just wanted to stop the religious services
> at school, but I supported the idea of nonsectarian prayer in the
> classroom during school,' McCord told the National Catholic Reporter.
> 'Since I've seen what religion can do to a community, I don't support
> any religious observance in school.'"
"Militant" atheism has the audacity to claim that religion damages and
kills people.
"Militant" theism damages and kills people.
Of course, none of these people were "True Christians" (TM) because
they make other theists look bad.
> On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
> > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
> > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > "bad" christians.
> Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> religion in doing so?
Which ones? The ones denying civil liberties to the gay people who
retaliated, or the gay people?
> On Nov 28, 6:51 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
> > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
> > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > > "bad" christians.
> > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > religion in doing so?
> Which ones? The ones denying civil liberties to the gay people who
> retaliated, or the gay people?
The ones beating the crap out of people and commiting violence against
them in that article.
My long rant to Trance should explain to you how I feel about
religious people doing similar things ...
It's easy for the iron thumb of the majority to play the "look at the
minority fighting back, they're extremists" card. All revolutionary
movements, every person who put their necks on the line to challenge
the injustice of the status quo, is an "extremist" and therefore
responsible for the evils of the "extremist" elements of the status
quo itself by Allan's perverted logic.
On Nov 28, 1:20 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:51 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 6:03 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Truly shameless and yet very Christian behavior. In fact, this isn't limited
> > > to Christians since you can see the same kind of behavior amongst those who
> > > believe in the other Abrahamic religions which leads one to believe that
> > > it's the biblical doctrine itself that's the source of this and not just
> > > "bad" christians.
> > Well, not really, since it seems to be very HUMAN behaviour:
> > Are you going to claim that those people targetting random and
> > innocent religious people over the issue of same-sex marriage was
> > spawned by the Bible, and that these people were following a Abrahamic
> > religion in doing so?
> Which ones? The ones denying civil liberties to the gay people who
> retaliated, or the gay people?- Hide quoted text -
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:19 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> > > Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by pointing
> > > out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> > > It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion in
> > > general if one wanted to address that.
> > Not when the religion is the source of it.
> But religion is not the source of extremism.
Religion was the source of THIS extremism.
Just like religion was the source of 9/11 extremism.
> Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> extremist religion?
> > > > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore
> this
> > > and
> > > > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to
> deal
> > > > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying
> > > other
> > > > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> > > We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if anti-theists
> > > weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> > > Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> > > and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> > > that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> > > because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> > > encourage us to join forces with you.
> > Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
> > counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their
> religious
> > extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact no
> > distinction in this case.
> Yes, because it IS extremism, and no better or no worse than any
> other.
It IS Religious Extremism and that's what you're dodging.
> The religious extremists cited in the first article are no better and
> no worse than the extremists cited in my article. That is my stance,
> and it is a consistent one. Do you deny this? If I can condemn
> religious extremism -- by insisting, as I have repeatedly, that
> atheists are not immoral and that non-believers shouldn't be killed --
> can you not also condemn the extremism in some of the same-sex
> marriage proponents, at a minimum by accepting them as extremists
> equally as bad as the religious ones? And can you not accept my
> personal faith and the faith of non-religious extremists is proof that
> faith is not the problem here, since my and their faith WILL NOT ALLOW
> THOSE ACTIONS?
> Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that we
> aren't extremists?
I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious Extremism
to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to justify it.
> Or do you need the sop, the insistence from all theists no matter how
> moral they act to go through every single post that is made and every
> instance of horrific extremism and say "Yes, we think that's bad" even
> though most people just simply think that that is bad and we generally
> assume that they do? If you require this, then yes, I think that
> religious extremism is bad. I think that killing people and insisting
> that that was done because you are insisting that they are not
> Christian and therefore not saved is utterly horrific. I actually
> consider that FAR more horrific than you do, because to me when they
> use the justification of, say, them not being saved to justify either
> doing it or it being okay to do it STOPS them from being "saved". So
> if you have to convert to be saved -- which I do not believe -- then
> you stop them from repenting their sins and coming to the
> understanding and being converted. If that was true -- and, again,
> most of them believe it but I do not -- that's DAMNING THEM TO HELL!
> That's horrific beyond their just being killed. Christians should be
> avoiding killing non-believers as much as possible.
> To quote Bryan Adams "Do I have to say the words?" And how many times
> do I have to say them before you'll accept that I believe them.
> > It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
> What would you like me to do? Am I required to run around attacking
> and insisting that other sects or religions are wrong and evil and
> make it my personal Crusade to continue doing that? Why isn't my
> simply acting on and talking about my own views enough?
> Do we have to go to war against them and start killing them before
> you'll believe that we oppose them?
> > > > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> > > They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists not
> > > only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us to
> > > do to oppose or stop them?
> > Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
> Considering that, as I said, we argue that they are incorrect this is
> a blatant lie. You KNOW that many liberal and non-extremist theists
> write books and papers and newsgroup posts about the underlying
> justifications all the time. Many are in the various churches and
> working to change policies for the better, and many of them have
> indeed changed for the better. Do you need blood before you'll accept
> our actions as being anything more than silence? Or do you just need
> us to renounce the faith that we see no need to renounce since we
> don't see it actually leading to that interpretation?
> > > > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to
> excuse
> > > it.
> > > I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> > > how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
> > When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes I'll
> > give that some consideration.
> So if someone uses evolution to justify eugenics -- which is
> shockingly easy to do (and yes, I'm aware that there are other ways to
> justify eugenics, but there are other ways to justify hurting people
> as well as I showed in this thread) -- should I insist that all
> scientists forswear all eugenics repeatedly or else I will insist that
> evolutionary theory and supporting it causes eugenics?
> You can see why forcing people to oppose the views of other people who
> are -- at least in the minds of the original people -- grossly
> misinterpreting the principle they are appealing to is ridiculous.
> > And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their
> malicious
> > hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that
> some
> > consideration.
> Since people are extremist over many issues, religious are otherwise,
> my argument is TRUE. That argument cannot be dishonest when it is
> true. Religion does not cause extremism; some extremists are
> extremist about religion. I would like to oppose all extremism; I am
> sorry you do not feel the same way, since you want to slice it up into
> categories and insist that the extremisms cannot have the same root
> cause, that is something in the psychological make-up of the humans
> who are extremists.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 12:19 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > >wrote:
> > > > Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by pointing
> > > > out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> > > > It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion in
> > > > general if one wanted to address that.
> > > Not when the religion is the source of it.
> > But religion is not the source of extremism.
> Religion was the source of THIS extremism.
> Just like religion was the source of 9/11 extremism.
> > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> > extremist religion?
> I think there are extremists in all religions.
> > > > > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore
> > this
> > > > and
> > > > > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse to
> > deal
> > > > > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by saying
> > > > other
> > > > > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> > > > We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if anti-theists
> > > > weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> > > > Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> > > > and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> > > > that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> > > > because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> > > > encourage us to join forces with you.
> > > Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
> > > counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their
> > religious
> > > extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact no
> > > distinction in this case.
> > Yes, because it IS extremism, and no better or no worse than any
> > other.
> It IS Religious Extremism and that's what you're dodging.
> > The religious extremists cited in the first article are no better and
> > no worse than the extremists cited in my article. That is my stance,
> > and it is a consistent one. Do you deny this? If I can condemn
> > religious extremism -- by insisting, as I have repeatedly, that
> > atheists are not immoral and that non-believers shouldn't be killed --
> > can you not also condemn the extremism in some of the same-sex
> > marriage proponents, at a minimum by accepting them as extremists
> > equally as bad as the religious ones? And can you not accept my
> > personal faith and the faith of non-religious extremists is proof that
> > faith is not the problem here, since my and their faith WILL NOT ALLOW
> > THOSE ACTIONS?
> > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that we
> > aren't extremists?
> I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious Extremism
> to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to justify it.
> > Or do you need the sop, the insistence from all theists no matter how
> > moral they act to go through every single post that is made and every
> > instance of horrific extremism and say "Yes, we think that's bad" even
> > though most people just simply think that that is bad and we generally
> > assume that they do? If you require this, then yes, I think that
> > religious extremism is bad. I think that killing people and insisting
> > that that was done because you are insisting that they are not
> > Christian and therefore not saved is utterly horrific. I actually
> > consider that FAR more horrific than you do, because to me when they
> > use the justification of, say, them not being saved to justify either
> > doing it or it being okay to do it STOPS them from being "saved". So
> > if you have to convert to be saved -- which I do not believe -- then
> > you stop them from repenting their sins and coming to the
> > understanding and being converted. If that was true -- and, again,
> > most of them believe it but I do not -- that's DAMNING THEM TO HELL!
> > That's horrific beyond their just being killed. Christians should be
> > avoiding killing non-believers as much as possible.
> > To quote Bryan Adams "Do I have to say the words?" And how many times
> > do I have to say them before you'll accept that I believe them.
> > > It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
> > What would you like me to do? Am I required to run around attacking
> > and insisting that other sects or religions are wrong and evil and
> > make it my personal Crusade to continue doing that? Why isn't my
> > simply acting on and talking about my own views enough?
> > Do we have to go to war against them and start killing them before
> > you'll believe that we oppose them?
> > > > > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> > > > They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists not
> > > > only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us to
> > > > do to oppose or stop them?
> > > Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
> > Considering that, as I said, we argue that they are incorrect this is
> > a blatant lie. You KNOW that many liberal and non-extremist theists
> > write books and papers and newsgroup posts about the underlying
> > justifications all the time. Many are in the various churches and
> > working to change policies for the better, and many of them have
> > indeed changed for the better. Do you need blood before you'll accept
> > our actions as being anything more than silence? Or do you just need
> > us to renounce the faith that we see no need to renounce since we
> > don't see it actually leading to that interpretation?
> > > > > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to
> > excuse
> > > > it.
> > > > I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> > > > how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
> > > When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes I'll
> > > give that some consideration.
> > So if someone uses evolution to justify eugenics -- which is
> > shockingly easy to do (and yes, I'm aware that there are other ways to
> > justify eugenics, but there are other ways to justify hurting people
> > as well as I showed in this thread) -- should I insist that all
> > scientists forswear all eugenics repeatedly or else I will insist that
> > evolutionary theory and supporting it causes eugenics?
> > You can see why forcing people to oppose the views of other people who
> > are -- at least in the minds of the original people -- grossly
> > misinterpreting the principle they are appealing to is ridiculous.
> > > And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their
> > malicious
> > > hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that
> > some
> > > consideration.
> > Since people are extremist over many issues, religious are otherwise,
> > my argument is TRUE. That argument cannot be dishonest when it is
> > true. Religion does not cause extremism; some extremists are
> > extremist about religion. I would like to oppose all extremism; I am
> > sorry you do not feel the same way, since you want to slice it up into
> > categories and insist that the extremisms cannot have the same root
> > cause, that is something in the psychological make-up of the humans
> > who are extremists.
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 28, 2:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> >wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 12:19 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Treebeard <
> allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by
> pointing
> > > > > out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> > > > > It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion
> in
> > > > > general if one wanted to address that.
> > > > Not when the religion is the source of it.
> > > But religion is not the source of extremism.
> > Religion was the source of THIS extremism.
> > Just like religion was the source of 9/11 extremism.
> > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> > > extremist religion?
> > I think there are extremists in all religions.
> > > > > > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore
> > > this
> > > > > and
> > > > > > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse
> to
> > > deal
> > > > > > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by
> saying
> > > > > other
> > > > > > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> > > > > We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if
> anti-theists
> > > > > weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> > > > > Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> > > > > and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> > > > > that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> > > > > because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> > > > > encourage us to join forces with you.
> > > > Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
> > > > counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their
> > > religious
> > > > extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact
> no
> > > > distinction in this case.
> > > Yes, because it IS extremism, and no better or no worse than any
> > > other.
> > It IS Religious Extremism and that's what you're dodging.
> > > The religious extremists cited in the first article are no better and
> > > no worse than the extremists cited in my article. That is my stance,
> > > and it is a consistent one. Do you deny this? If I can condemn
> > > religious extremism -- by insisting, as I have repeatedly, that
> > > atheists are not immoral and that non-believers shouldn't be killed --
> > > can you not also condemn the extremism in some of the same-sex
> > > marriage proponents, at a minimum by accepting them as extremists
> > > equally as bad as the religious ones? And can you not accept my
> > > personal faith and the faith of non-religious extremists is proof that
> > > faith is not the problem here, since my and their faith WILL NOT ALLOW
> > > THOSE ACTIONS?
> > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that we
> > > aren't extremists?
> > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious
> Extremism
> > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to justify
> it.
> > > Or do you need the sop, the insistence from all theists no matter how
> > > moral they act to go through every single post that is made and every
> > > instance of horrific extremism and say "Yes, we think that's bad" even
> > > though most people just simply think that that is bad and we generally
> > > assume that they do? If you require this, then yes, I think that
> > > religious extremism is bad. I think that killing people and insisting
> > > that that was done because you are insisting that they are not
> > > Christian and therefore not saved is utterly horrific. I actually
> > > consider that FAR more horrific than you do, because to me when they
> > > use the justification of, say, them not being saved to justify either
> > > doing it or it being okay to do it STOPS them from being "saved". So
> > > if you have to convert to be saved -- which I do not believe -- then
> > > you stop them from repenting their sins and coming to the
> > > understanding and being converted. If that was true -- and, again,
> > > most of them believe it but I do not -- that's DAMNING THEM TO HELL!
> > > That's horrific beyond their just being killed. Christians should be
> > > avoiding killing non-believers as much as possible.
> > > To quote Bryan Adams "Do I have to say the words?" And how many times
> > > do I have to say them before you'll accept that I believe them.
> > > > It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
> > > What would you like me to do? Am I required to run around attacking
> > > and insisting that other sects or religions are wrong and evil and
> > > make it my personal Crusade to continue doing that? Why isn't my
> > > simply acting on and talking about my own views enough?
> > > Do we have to go to war against them and start killing them before
> > > you'll believe that we oppose them?
> > > > > > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> > > > > They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists
> not
> > > > > only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us
> to
> > > > > do to oppose or stop them?
> > > > Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
> > > Considering that, as I said, we argue that they are incorrect this is
> > > a blatant lie. You KNOW that many liberal and non-extremist theists
> > > write books and papers and newsgroup posts about the underlying
> > > justifications all the time. Many are in the various churches and
> > > working to change policies for the better, and many of them have
> > > indeed changed for the better. Do you need blood before you'll accept
> > > our actions as being anything more than silence? Or do you just need
> > > us to renounce the faith that we see no need to renounce since we
> > > don't see it actually leading to that interpretation?
> > > > > > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to
> > > excuse
> > > > > it.
> > > > > I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> > > > > how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
> > > > When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes
> I'll
> > > > give that some consideration.
> > > So if someone uses evolution to justify eugenics -- which is
> > > shockingly easy to do (and yes, I'm aware that there are other ways to
> > > justify eugenics, but there are other ways to justify hurting people
> > > as well as I showed in this thread) -- should I insist that all
> > > scientists forswear all eugenics repeatedly or else I will insist that
> > > evolutionary theory and supporting it causes eugenics?
> > > You can see why forcing people to oppose the views of other people who
> > > are -- at least in the minds of the original people -- grossly
> > > misinterpreting the principle they are appealing to is ridiculous.
> > > > And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their
> > > malicious
> > > > hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that
> > > some
> > > > consideration.
> > > Since people are extremist over many issues, religious are otherwise,
> > > my argument is TRUE. That argument cannot be dishonest when it is
> > > true. Religion does not cause extremism; some extremists are
> > > extremist about religion. I would like to oppose all extremism; I am
> > > sorry you do not feel the same way, since you want to slice it up into
> > > categories and insist that the extremisms cannot have the same root
> > > cause, that is something in the psychological make-up of the humans
> > > who are extremists.
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> and
> > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> speech
> > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> US
> > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > "Do you think there can be a non-extremist religion?"
> > Has Allan defined "extremism", or is he going the route of arguing
> > from ambiguity here?
> I didn't want to go there or I'll be dealing with a 1 million word post.
> Lol.
> However, good point.
> > On Nov 28, 2:24 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > >wrote:
> > > > On Nov 28, 12:19 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Treebeard <
> > allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > Which makes it a feature of EXTREMISM, as my article shows by
> > pointing
> > > > > > out non-religious extremists doing bad things.
> > > > > > It would seem better to oppose extremism in general than religion
> > in
> > > > > > general if one wanted to address that.
> > > > > Not when the religion is the source of it.
> > > > But religion is not the source of extremism.
> > > Religion was the source of THIS extremism.
> > > Just like religion was the source of 9/11 extremism.
> > > > Let's cut to the chase here: do you think that there can be a non-
> > > > extremist religion?
> > > I think there are extremists in all religions.
> > > > > > > The problem with you liberal theists is that you willfully ignore
> > > > this
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > are so busy trying to get yourselves off the hook that you refuse
> > to
> > > > deal
> > > > > > > with this extremism in your midst and continuously justify by
> > saying
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > people are as bad as we are or people are bad it's not our faith.
> > > > > > We would be more than happy to deal with the extremism if
> > anti-theists
> > > > > > weren't keeping us so busy defending our own non-extremist faith.
> > > > > > Non-extremist theists are proof of the fact that you can have faith
> > > > > > and not go out and kill people or support such actions. Insisting
> > > > > > that we are still just as bad and that we have to give up our faith
> > > > > > because of some idiots whom we do not agree with does not exactly
> > > > > > encourage us to join forces with you.
> > > > > Too bad you keep your mouths shut then about what your extremist
> > > > > counterparts are doing and then dishonestly try to justify their
> > > > religious
> > > > > extremist as some sort of "general" extremism when there is in fact
> > no
> > > > > distinction in this case.
> > > > Yes, because it IS extremism, and no better or no worse than any
> > > > other.
> > > It IS Religious Extremism and that's what you're dodging.
> > > > The religious extremists cited in the first article are no better and
> > > > no worse than the extremists cited in my article. That is my stance,
> > > > and it is a consistent one. Do you deny this? If I can condemn
> > > > religious extremism -- by insisting, as I have repeatedly, that
> > > > atheists are not immoral and that non-believers shouldn't be killed --
> > > > can you not also condemn the extremism in some of the same-sex
> > > > marriage proponents, at a minimum by accepting them as extremists
> > > > equally as bad as the religious ones? And can you not accept my
> > > > personal faith and the faith of non-religious extremists is proof that
> > > > faith is not the problem here, since my and their faith WILL NOT ALLOW
> > > > THOSE ACTIONS?
> > > > Would you force us to give up our faith before you'd accept that we
> > > > aren't extremists?
> > > I would expect all religious people who don't agree with Religious
> > Extremism
> > > to Acknowledge It and take a stand against it and stop trying to justify
> > it.
> > > > Or do you need the sop, the insistence from all theists no matter how
> > > > moral they act to go through every single post that is made and every
> > > > instance of horrific extremism and say "Yes, we think that's bad" even
> > > > though most people just simply think that that is bad and we generally
> > > > assume that they do? If you require this, then yes, I think that
> > > > religious extremism is bad. I think that killing people and insisting
> > > > that that was done because you are insisting that they are not
> > > > Christian and therefore not saved is utterly horrific. I actually
> > > > consider that FAR more horrific than you do, because to me when they
> > > > use the justification of, say, them not being saved to justify either
> > > > doing it or it being okay to do it STOPS them from being "saved". So
> > > > if you have to convert to be saved -- which I do not believe -- then
> > > > you stop them from repenting their sins and coming to the
> > > > understanding and being converted. If that was true -- and, again,
> > > > most of them believe it but I do not -- that's DAMNING THEM TO HELL!
> > > > That's horrific beyond their just being killed. Christians should be
> > > > avoiding killing non-believers as much as possible.
> > > > To quote Bryan Adams "Do I have to say the words?" And how many times
> > > > do I have to say them before you'll accept that I believe them.
> > > > > It's because of this dishonesty that we confront you.
> > > > What would you like me to do? Am I required to run around attacking
> > > > and insisting that other sects or religions are wrong and evil and
> > > > make it my personal Crusade to continue doing that? Why isn't my
> > > > simply acting on and talking about my own views enough?
> > > > Do we have to go to war against them and start killing them before
> > > > you'll believe that we oppose them?
> > > > > > > It is your faith. These people acted on their faith.
> > > > > > They acted on their interpretation, which we non-extremist theists
> > not
> > > > > > only find incorrect, but argue incorrect. What would you like us
> > to
> > > > > > do to oppose or stop them?
> > > > > Anything. Your silence allows them to continue.
> > > > Considering that, as I said, we argue that they are incorrect this is
> > > > a blatant lie. You KNOW that many liberal and non-extremist theists
> > > > write books and papers and newsgroup posts about the underlying
> > > > justifications all the time. Many are in the various churches and
> > > > working to change policies for the better, and many of them have
> > > > indeed changed for the better. Do you need blood before you'll accept
> > > > our actions as being anything more than silence? Or do you just need
> > > > us to renounce the faith that we see no need to renounce since we
> > > > don't see it actually leading to that interpretation?
> > > > > > > Open your eyes and stop legitimizing this bullshit by trying to
> > > > excuse
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > I'll do that the instant you stop trying to use them as examples of
> > > > > > how all religion is bad and causes such issues.
> > > > > When they stop using their religion to justify malicious hate crimes
> > I'll
> > > > > give that some consideration.
> > > > So if someone uses evolution to justify eugenics -- which is
> > > > shockingly easy to do (and yes, I'm aware that there are other ways to
> > > > justify eugenics, but there are other ways to justify hurting people
> > > > as well as I showed in this thread) -- should I insist that all
> > > > scientists forswear all eugenics repeatedly or else I will insist that
> > > > evolutionary theory and supporting it causes eugenics?
> > > > You can see why forcing people to oppose the views of other people who
> > > > are -- at least in the minds of the original people -- grossly
> > > > misinterpreting the principle they are appealing to is ridiculous.
> > > > > And when people like you stop trying to dishonestly justify their
> > > > malicious
> > > > > hates crimes by claiming it's some "generic" extremism I'll give that
> > > > some
> > > > > consideration.
> > > > Since people are extremist over many issues, religious are otherwise,
> > > > my argument is TRUE. That argument cannot be dishonest when it is
> > > > true. Religion does not cause extremism; some extremists are
> > > > extremist about religion. I would like to oppose all extremism; I am
> > > > sorry you do not feel the same way, since you want to slice it up into
> > > > categories and insist that the extremisms cannot have the same root
> > > > cause, that is something in the psychological make-up of the humans
> > > > who are extremists.
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> > > "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech
> > and
> > > assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of
> > speech
> > > to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis,
> > US
> > > Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
> "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
> assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
> to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
> Supreme Court Justice- Hide quoted text -
|
