Religious Hatred?
Sleepalot
<http://richarddawkins.net/article,3846,n,n>
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1>
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Christopher A. Lee
<sleep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
><http://richarddawkins.net/article,3846,n,n>
Sheer, unadulterated evil.
Ken
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:18:32 +0100, Sleepalot
>
>
> ><http://richarddawkins.net/article,3846,n,n>
>
> Sheer, unadulterated evil.
What else should we expect?
Mike Jones
Seeing as that lot invented evil, and shit sticks... ;\
From my position they're just the inevitable darwinian failures of the
human race. Without that fatal flaw, we could be so much more as a
species, but...
Sigh!
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
Pete Barrett
<sleep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
><http://richarddawkins.net/article,3846,n,n>
>
><http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1>
>
>
This is a rather more balanced analysis of what the Cardinal had to
say:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/cardinal-cormac-murphy-oconnor-atheists.html
A few days earlier, he also said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7390941.stm
Those don't make him sound so bad as the headline makes him seem.
Pete Barrett
graham
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i7va159485nrstn1l...@4ax.com...
Particularly when you take into account the widespread abuse of children by
the priests and nuns that has been reported in just about every country,
Ireland being the latest. And the bastards in the heirarchy moved the
offenders around and refuse to take responsibility!!
Evil: thy name is religion!
Graham
Christopher A. Lee
Barrett) wrote:
>On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:18:32 +0100, Sleepalot
><sleep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>><http://richarddawkins.net/article,3846,n,n>
>>
>><http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1>
>>
>>
>This is a rather more balanced analysis of what the Cardinal had to
>say:
>http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/cardinal-cormac-murphy-oconnor-atheists.html
Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahaha....
It can't be any more balanced than the raw BBC video, which is
embedded in the Dawkins page.
And it's not religiously motivated hatred to say that atheists aren't
fully human because they're outside his own little fantasy world?
Why does Stephen Law imagine that his "bigger questions" have any in
the real world where Christianity is just one of hundreds of different
religions that are only taken seriously by their followers, and would
be mostly ignored if they had any common sense and courtesy??
Hint: they're merely part of somebody else's religion.
He's an apologist trying to spin what the personally nasty bigot said.
>A few days earlier, he also said:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7390941.stm
Does he really think it respects atheists to tell us we're not fully
human?
>Those don't make him sound so bad as the headline makes him seem.
So why did he say that atheists weren't fully human?
>Pete Barrett
And why are you defending his religiously motivated, bigoted
nastiness?
Pete Barrett
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahaha....
>
>It can't be any more balanced than the raw BBC video, which is
>embedded in the Dawkins page.
>
>And it's not religiously motivated hatred to say that atheists aren't
>fully human because they're outside his own little fantasy world?
>
He says that in his opinion (and he does stress that it's just his
opinion), ignoring the 'transcendent' (by which he means god, though
obviously there are other versions of the 'transcendent') makes
someone less than human. You (or I) may or may not agree with him, but
as Law points out, most atheists are rather interested in these
questions (hence this newsgroup).
>Why does Stephen Law imagine that his "bigger questions" have any in
>the real world where Christianity is just one of hundreds of different
>religions that are only taken seriously by their followers, and would
>be mostly ignored if they had any common sense and courtesy??
>
Doesn't that rather prove that these are questions which humans ask,
and have been asking for thousands of years, and have been answering
in different ways as long as they've been asking them?
>Hint: they're merely part of somebody else's religion.
>
>He's an apologist trying to spin what the personally nasty bigot said.
>
>>A few days earlier, he also said:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7390941.stm
>
>Does he really think it respects atheists to tell us we're not fully
>human?
I doubt it - so perhaps he's been misrepresented in the headline? It
wouldn't be the first time a journalist has taken a phrase out of
context and put it in a headline in such a way as to misrepresent the
author's views.
>
>>Those don't make him sound so bad as the headline makes him seem.
>
>So why did he say that atheists weren't fully human?
I can't find him saying that anywhere in the clip. I hear "an
impoverished understanding of what it is to be human", "something not
totally human if they give up the transcendent", "if you say 'that has
no place' ... that is a diminishment of what it is to be human", "if
you leave that out you are not *fully* human". Lots of conditionals
there - nowhere I can hear does he say that atheists as a group are
not fully human.
>
>>Pete Barrett
>
>And why are you defending his religiously motivated, bigoted
>nastiness?
In the interests of the truth - when I listen to it, it's quite clear
to me that he doesn't mean what the headline portrays him as meaning.
Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
Barrett) wrote:
>On Thu, 21 May 2009 20:01:08 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahaha....
>>
>>It can't be any more balanced than the raw BBC video, which is
>>embedded in the Dawkins page.
>>
>>And it's not religiously motivated hatred to say that atheists aren't
>>fully human because they're outside his own little fantasy world?
>>
>He says that in his opinion (and he does stress that it's just his
>opinion), ignoring the 'transcendent' (by which he means god, though
>obviously there are other versions of the 'transcendent') makes
>someone less than human. You (or I) may or may not agree with him, but
>as Law points out, most atheists are rather interested in these
>questions (hence this newsgroup).
So it's "just his opinion" that atheists are less than human.
Which is still bigoted hatred.
If he had the common sense to keep his stupid fantasies inside his
religion nobody would give a toss.
But he can't. And he couples that with bigoted nastiness.
Most atheists aren't interested. They do however react.
Pete Barrett
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>So it's "just his opinion" that atheists are less than human.
>
>Which is still bigoted hatred.
>
What do you think of when you see a statement like "Cardinall O'Connor
says athesits are less than human"? What does anyone think of? That he
thinks atheists are 'sub-human', the same way that the Nazis viewed
Jews (and Roma, and Slavs), that slave holders in the Americas viewed
Blacks, that 19th and early 20th century imperialists viewed the
native people they were ruling, and a hundred other examples.
If that was indeed his view, you'd be absolutely correct in calling it
'bigotted hatred'. But it's not. And it's only necessary to listen to
what he actually said to realise that, or to look at a less misleading
account.
Why fall for the old journalist's trick of giving something a
misleading headline in order to make readers emote in a particular
way?
Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
Barrett) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 2009 18:13:57 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>So it's "just his opinion" that atheists are less than human.
>>
>>Which is still bigoted hatred.
>>
>What do you think of when you see a statement like "Cardinall O'Connor
>says athesits are less than human"? What does anyone think of? That he
>thinks atheists are 'sub-human', the same way that the Nazis viewed
>Jews (and Roma, and Slavs), that slave holders in the Americas viewed
>Blacks, that 19th and early 20th century imperialists viewed the
>native people they were ruling, and a hundred other examples.
It's still bigoted hatred, whatever you pretend.
>If that was indeed his view, you'd be absolutely correct in calling it
>'bigotted hatred'. But it's not. And it's only necessary to listen to
>what he actually said to realise that, or to look at a less misleading
>account.
I did, moron. In the video of the interview.
>Why fall for the old journalist's trick of giving something a
>misleading headline in order to make readers emote in a particular
>way?
I don't.
I saw the video of the interview.
Whether you like it or not, he is yet another stupid, bigoted, deluded
theist who can't see the real world beyond his religion.
>Pete Barrett
Pete Barrett
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>What do you think of when you see a statement like "Cardinall O'Connor
>>says athesits are less than human"? What does anyone think of? That he
>>thinks atheists are 'sub-human', the same way that the Nazis viewed
>>Jews (and Roma, and Slavs), that slave holders in the Americas viewed
>>Blacks, that 19th and early 20th century imperialists viewed the
>>native people they were ruling, and a hundred other examples.
>
>It's still bigoted hatred, whatever you pretend.
>
>>If that was indeed his view, you'd be absolutely correct in calling it
>>'bigotted hatred'. But it's not. And it's only necessary to listen to
>>what he actually said to realise that, or to look at a less misleading
>>account.
>
>I did, moron. In the video of the interview.
>
Well, if you saw the same video that I did, how have you managed to
take from it that what he's saying is 'bigoted hatred'? That you (or
anyone) might take it from the headline, I can understand; but since
he's *not* calling atheists sub-humans, or implying it, what is it
that makes you call what he's saying 'bigoted hatred'?
Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
His own words, imbecile:
"Whether they are <indistinct> as atheists or any other there is in my
view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent.
If they leave out an aspect of what, I believe, everyone is made for.
Which is a search for transcendent meaning. We call it God. If they
say that has no place then I feel that it is a diminishment of what is
being human. Because to be a human in the sense I believe humanity is
directed because made by God, if they leave that out they're not fully
human"
He is delusional, bigoted and nasty.
>
>Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
>On 2009-05-25, Christopher A Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 08:17:22 GMT, peteb...@freeuk.com (Pete
>> Barrett) wrote:
>
>>>Well, if you saw the same video that I did, how have you managed to
>>>take from it that what he's saying is 'bigoted hatred'? That you (or
>>>anyone) might take it from the headline, I can understand; but since
>>>he's *not* calling atheists sub-humans, or implying it, what is it
>>>that makes you call what he's saying 'bigoted hatred'?
>>
>> His own words, imbecile:
>>
>> "Whether they are <indistinct> as atheists or any other there is in my
>> view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent.
>> If they leave out an aspect of what, I believe, everyone is made for.
>> Which is a search for transcendent meaning. We call it God. If they
>> say that has no place then I feel that it is a diminishment of what is
>> being human."
>
>Oddly enough I kinda agree with him, up to here. Anyone who doesn't have
>a sense of the numinous is indeed diminished. Standing in Muir Woods,
>or at the edge of the Grand Canyon, anyone who doesn't feel awe and
>wonder is, IMO, a little odd. Of course, I realise that the feeling is
>entirely internal and nothing whatsoever to do with Sky Fairies.
He didn't talk about that feeling, which we all get.
He called it God, said that we were made to search for it and if we
didn't that is a "diminishment of what is being human" which we were
made for.
He's just plain wrong. And nastily so.
And they want to elevate this thoroughly nasty, bigoted liar to the
peerage?
>> "Because to be a human in the sense I believe humanity is
>> directed because made by God, if they leave that out they're not fully
>> human"
>
>And then he, as you rightly state, starts the name calling.
>
>> He is delusional, bigoted and nasty.
>
>Quite so. And likely in part responsible for the grotesque, vile abuse
>of children that the Catholic Church seems to specialise in. Perhaps
>they think that Matthew 9:14 actually says "Suffer, little children."?
Too many theists imagine their religious beliefs give them a free ride
that exempts them from common sense and courtesy. It turns them into
sociopaths and gets worse the higher up they are. They imagine their
position gives them some kind of authority over everybody.
If he had said that to me face to face, he would have had an earfull
telling him exactly what I have been saying here, a lot louder and a
lot less politely.
Which would probably have shocked him because he is used to everybody
deferring to him because of his position in the church. I have never
understood why church people imagine they get this undeserved respect
when they themselves don't show it.
Christopher A. Lee
>No he didn't. he said "We call it God". Well, *he* might call it God, but
>that's because he's a weirdo in a dress.
What nobody has mentioned, is that he told his followers we are less
than human.
Mike Jones
[...]
> Too many theists imagine their religious beliefs give them a free ride
> that exempts them from common sense and courtesy. It turns them into
> sociopaths and gets worse the higher up they are. They imagine their
> position gives them some kind of authority over everybody.
Nicely nutshelled. Well put.
Christopher A. Lee
>Responding to Christopher A. Lee:
>
>[...]
>> Too many theists imagine their religious beliefs give them a free ride
>> that exempts them from common sense and courtesy. It turns them into
>> sociopaths and gets worse the higher up they are. They imagine their
>> position gives them some kind of authority over everybody.
>
>
>Nicely nutshelled. Well put.
<blush> Thanks.
Mike Jones
[...]
>>No he didn't. he said "We call it God". Well, *he* might call it God,
>>but that's because he's a weirdo in a dress.
>
> What nobody has mentioned, is that he told his followers we are less
> than human.
Spot on.
I watched the video too, and despite the chummy casual wording, the
statements he made boil down to "If you're not a believer, you're not
fully human."
That phrase "not fully human" cannot be divorced from it's associations
with the (by now tragically and horribly) well defined term "sub-human".
That statement that non-believers are "not fully human", no matter HOW
smeared with the butter of "love the sinner not the sin" (like that has
any credibility to non-believers) they may be, is a /direct statement/
that /atheists are sub-human/.
Now lets see him say the same thing, but substitute "atheist" with "jew",
"black", "Chinese", "Muslim", "Shintoist" etc. (unless he's specifically
pointing just at atheists here, and approving all other religions
simultaniously? ...but thats another sub-thread methinks.)
IOW, if this won't float if we use the words suggested there, then it
shouldn't float when pointed at atheists. Pretending its NOT hugely
offensive Nazi-esque propaganda dressed up as "amiable musings" is to
lend approval to it's "core message".
If you tolerate this... (C'mon! Y'all know the chorus to this one!)
pg
news:j3sk15hjd933oci3b...@4ax.com...
> Too many theists imagine their religious beliefs give them a free ride
> that exempts them from common sense and courtesy. It turns them into
> sociopaths and gets worse the higher up they are. They imagine their
> position gives them some kind of authority over everybody.
Tell me about it. I face this attitude day in day out on uk.r.c.
pg
Pete Barrett
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>His own words, imbecile:
>
This the second time you've been gratuitously rude. Even if you can't
follow the rules of common decency, you might follow the rules of
English grammar.
>"Whether they are <indistinct> as atheists or any other there is in my
>view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent.
>If they leave out an aspect of what, I believe, everyone is made for.
>Which is a search for transcendent meaning. We call it God. If they
>say that has no place then I feel that it is a diminishment of what is
>being human. Because to be a human in the sense I believe humanity is
>directed because made by God, if they leave that out they're not fully
>human"
>
So he's saying that those atheists who leave out what he calls the
search for a transcendent meaning from their lives (which he thinks is
all atheists, but as Law points out, he's clearly wrong about that),
are leaving out from their lives something (the search for a
transcendent meaning) which is needed for the life to be fully human?
You call that bigoted hatred? From the tone of his voice when he says
it, I'd guess that he's sad (because in his view he has a much better
idea of reality), but I hear no hatred there.
>He is delusional, bigoted and nasty.
Do you believe that he views atheists (all atheists, or atheists in
general) in the same way that Hitler viewed Jews, Romany, and Slavs?
*That* would be bigoted and nasty, but I don't think you can get that
from what he's said. So what *do* you think is his attitude, from the
quote above?
Does he think all atheists are sub-humans who should be exterminated?
(*That* would be bigoted hatred.)
Does he want all atheists put into re-education camps? (*That* would
be bigoted hatred.)
Does he want atheists' children to be taken from them and
indoctrinated as Catholics? (*That* would be bigoted hatred.)
But he wants none of these things, does he? What is is it that you
take from his words that you construe to be bigoted hatred?
Pete Barrett
Mike Jones
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 12:58:23 GMT, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>
>>Responding to Christopher A. Lee:
>>
>>[...]
>>> Too many theists imagine their religious beliefs give them a free ride
>>> that exempts them from common sense and courtesy. It turns them into
>>> sociopaths and gets worse the higher up they are. They imagine their
>>> position gives them some kind of authority over everybody.
>>
>>
>>Nicely nutshelled. Well put.
>
> <blush> Thanks.
Welcome you are.
Pete Barrett
>
>Spot on.
>
>I watched the video too, and despite the chummy casual wording, the
>statements he made boil down to "If you're not a believer, you're not
>fully human."
>
>That phrase "not fully human" cannot be divorced from it's associations
>with the (by now tragically and horribly) well defined term "sub-human".
>
>That statement that non-believers are "not fully human", no matter HOW
>smeared with the butter of "love the sinner not the sin" (like that has
>any credibility to non-believers) they may be, is a /direct statement/
>that /atheists are sub-human/.
>
What he seems to believe is something like this:
Proposition 1) A sense of the transcendent is necessary to be fully
human.
Proposition 2) Atheists lack a sense of the transcendent
Conclusion) Atheists are not fully human in that they don't have a
sense of the transcendent.
Proposition 2 is clearly false, and Proposition 1 is very doubtful (I
happen to think it's wrong, but as far as I can see it's not provable
either way), so inevitably the Conclusion is wrong as well.
However, he believes them, so he thinks his conclusion follows. But
he's not saying anything about atheists being 'less than human' in any
way other than in lacking a sense of the transcendent. To call a group
'sub-human' is surely to mean that they're less than human in many
ways - we're all thinking of the same examples of that, so I refer you
to those. What he's saying is not that.
Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
Barrett) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 2009 13:07:12 GMT, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>
>>
>>Spot on.
>>
>>I watched the video too, and despite the chummy casual wording, the
>>statements he made boil down to "If you're not a believer, you're not
>>fully human."
>>
>>That phrase "not fully human" cannot be divorced from it's associations
>>with the (by now tragically and horribly) well defined term "sub-human".
>>
>>That statement that non-believers are "not fully human", no matter HOW
>>smeared with the butter of "love the sinner not the sin" (like that has
>>any credibility to non-believers) they may be, is a /direct statement/
>>that /atheists are sub-human/.
>>
>What he seems to believe is something like this:
>
>Proposition 1) A sense of the transcendent is necessary to be fully
>human.
1.1) "We" call this sense of the transcendant God and "we" were all
created to search for it.
>Proposition 2) Atheists lack a sense of the transcendent
>Conclusion) Atheists are not fully human in that they don't have a
>sense of the transcendent.
Where he means "God".
>Proposition 2 is clearly false, and Proposition 1 is very doubtful (I
>happen to think it's wrong, but as far as I can see it's not provable
>either way), so inevitably the Conclusion is wrong as well.
>
>However, he believes them, so he thinks his conclusion follows. But
>he's not saying anything about atheists being 'less than human' in any
>way other than in lacking a sense of the transcendent. To call a group
>'sub-human' is surely to mean that they're less than human in many
>ways - we're all thinking of the same examples of that, so I refer you
>to those. What he's saying is not that.
Yes he is, because "WE call it God".
>Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
Barrett) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 2009 05:38:54 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>His own words, imbecile:
>>
>This the second time you've been gratuitously rude. Even if you can't
>follow the rules of common decency, you might follow the rules of
>English grammar.
If you don't like it, don't be one.
>>"Whether they are <indistinct> as atheists or any other there is in my
>>view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent.
>>If they leave out an aspect of what, I believe, everyone is made for.
>>Which is a search for transcendent meaning. We call it God. If they
>>say that has no place then I feel that it is a diminishment of what is
>>being human. Because to be a human in the sense I believe humanity is
>>directed because made by God, if they leave that out they're not fully
>>human"
>>
>So he's saying that those atheists who leave out what he calls the
>search for a transcendent meaning from their lives (which he thinks is
>all atheists, but as Law points out, he's clearly wrong about that),
>are leaving out from their lives something (the search for a
>transcendent meaning) which is needed for the life to be fully human?
WHICH HE EQUATES WITH GOD, IMBECILE, AND SAYS WE'RE LESS THAN HUMAN IF
WE DON'T SEARCH FOR IT.
No matter how much tyou pretend otherwise, it was grossly, bigotedly
offensive.
>You call that bigoted hatred? From the tone of his voice when he says
>it, I'd guess that he's sad (because in his view he has a much better
>idea of reality), but I hear no hatred there.
He's the top Catholic in England and Wales. Telling not just us but
also all his followers that we aren't fully human.
Pretending that it is merely his belief is disingenuouis. He said it.
Of atheists.
pg
news:4a1af9b...@news.motzarella.org...
All the twisting and turning aside, one thing is certain. As soon as a group
is described as sub-human, no matter what tone is used, carte blanche is
given to those amongst its followers that needed little excuse to treat the
infidels with the same respect as we do other non-human species.
It doesn't matter what he wants, what he intended. That is irrelevant. What
matters is that he is a respected leader amongst Christians and therefore
his words will be taken at face value by some amongst their number.
Your argument is similar to that used by Christians who play down the use of
genocidal language used in the Bible. It wasn't what God "meant". Didn't
stop multitudes of believers for using that text to justify all manner of
atrocities over the ages, did it.
It was an utterly irresponsible and stupid thing for the Cardinal to say,
the sort of thing that can even be responsible for deaths once the moron and
psychologically inadequate factors amongst the masses are taken into
account.
pg
news:781kb1F...@mid.individual.net...
uk.religion.christian
A moderated newsgroup where a few patient atheists are resident, to put the
other side of the argument. (CAL wouldn't last a day before being banned ;-)
Christopher A. Lee
>Ah, thank you. I consider it unlikely I shall be joining you.
God bots don't like people who don't put up with their bullshit -
whether about their religion or about people outside it.
But I wouldn't go there for the same reason I don't go to prayer
meetings, churches etc.
I just wish they would show us the same courtesy.
pg
Nor would I, if the charter didn't state it was a ng for discussion *about*
Christianity in the UK, rather than *for* Christians. So it's not a virtual
church, it's for views about Christianity to be put forward. So I put my
views forward ;-)
davidwg
> On 26 May 2009 08:23:10 GMT, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 2009-05-26, pg <p...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> >> "Huge" <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:781kb1F...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> On 2009-05-25, pg <p...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
> >>>> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:j3sk15hjd933oci3b...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>> Too many theists imagine their religious beliefs give them a free ride
> >>>>> that exempts them from common sense and courtesy. It turns them into
> >>>>> sociopaths and gets worse the higher up they are. They imagine their
> >>>>> position gives them some kind of authority over everybody.
>
> >>>> Tell me about it. I face this attitude day in day out on uk.r.c.
>
> >>> uk.r.c?
>
> >> uk.religion.christian
>
> >> A moderated newsgroup where a few patient atheists are resident, to put the
> >> other side of the argument. (CAL wouldn't last a day before being banned ;-)
>
> >Ah, thank you. I consider it unlikely I shall be joining you.
>
> God bots don't like people who don't put up with their bullshit -
> whether about their religion or about people outside it.
>
> But I wouldn't go there for the same reason I don't go to prayer
> meetings, churches etc.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If your whole life and being depends on maintaining a fantasy wrapped
round a fairy tale it is understandable that some fanatics will attack
those who do not share their delusions. After all they cannot admit,
even to themselves, that the whole concept of a creator god is
childish nonesense invented by people in the Stone Age or before.
Throughout history the Roman Catholic Church has tried to supress
those who denied its teachings often by killing them. In the last
century, and probably for long before that, the Roman Catholic Church
has been involved in the most horrific abuse of children throughout
the world. The church has lost any moral authority it might once
have had and is it no position to criticise those sensible enough to
discard its often ludicrous dogma.
David W-G
Leonard Abbott
The present power in liberalism, led by the Catholic-Zionist conspiracy
is part of the Satanic plan to destroy Christianity!
'' Dan 11:23 "And because of their allying themselves with him he will
carry on deception and actually come up and become mighty by means of a
little nation"
Establishing ''Little Israel'' by these two powers is the source for
most strife in the world today.There has been 60 yrs of war over the
''little nation", and the decline of Christian values since the two
Satan controlled powers united.
Israel's control of washington through liberalism, has allowed Liberals
to further degrade both man and Womankind.
Dan 11:37 ''And to the God of his fathers
he will give no consideration and to the desire of women and to every
other god he will give no consideration, but over everyone he will
magnify himself.
Through a combination of Atheism and giving. "no consideration to man's
natural and legitimate desire of women'' hundreds of laws against the
welfare of mankind have been passed through liberalism...
In the middle of the 19th century European Catholics and Jews left "the
God of his fathers" for Darwinism, leaving God for Atheism they began to
preach feminism, and ignoring ''the natural desire of women"
Charges of Male chauvinism produced 100s of laws and customs against
men's natural right to have sex with a wife of his choosing.
lenny
Mike Jones
Stop making excuses for them and their behaviour. The Nazis had some
charming ways of expressing their hatred too, don't forget.
Tolerate - children - next - etc.
Christopher A. Lee
Which "We call God".
>> 'sub-human' is surely to mean that they're less than human in many ways
>> - we're all thinking of the same examples of that, so I refer you to
>> those. What he's saying is not that.
>>
>>
>> Pete Barrett
>
>Stop making excuses for them and their behaviour. The Nazis had some
>charming ways of expressing their hatred too, don't forget.
I've been wondering why he tries to put a spin on it.
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>
>All the twisting and turning aside, one thing is certain. As soon as a group
>is described as sub-human, no matter what tone is used, carte blanche is
>given to those amongst its followers that needed little excuse to treat the
>infidels with the same respect as we do other non-human species.
>
It's clear to me that he's *not* meaning to say that atheists are
sub-human - I've argued the reasons why I think that elsewhere.
>It doesn't matter what he wants, what he intended. That is irrelevant. What
>matters is that he is a respected leader amongst Christians and therefore
>his words will be taken at face value by some amongst their number.
>
I think what he wanted or intended is very relevant. For him to
unintentionally say something which could be interpreted as saying
atheists are sub-human is very different from deliberately saying it.
If someone says something, then I reckon to try to understand what
they meant before I react to it, and I see no reason to treat the
Cardinal any differently.
>Your argument is similar to that used by Christians who play down the use of
>genocidal language used in the Bible. It wasn't what God "meant". Didn't
>stop multitudes of believers for using that text to justify all manner of
>atrocities over the ages, did it.
>
>It was an utterly irresponsible and stupid thing for the Cardinal to say,
>the sort of thing that can even be responsible for deaths once the moron and
>psychologically inadequate factors amongst the masses are taken into
>account.
>
Possibly, though I haven't noticed any news reports of Catholics
attacking atheists because they now think they're sub-human. In fact,
the only people who seem to have taken what he said to mean that are a
few atheists, and not all atheists, either.
Pete Barrett
Pete Barrett
>Responding to Pete Barrett:
>
>> However, he believes them, so he thinks his conclusion follows. But he's
>> not saying anything about atheists being 'less than human' in any way
>> other than in lacking a sense of the transcendent. To call a group
>> 'sub-human' is surely to mean that they're less than human in many ways
>> - we're all thinking of the same examples of that, so I refer you to
>> those. What he's saying is not that.
>>
>>
>> Pete Barrett
>
>
>Stop making excuses for them and their behaviour. The Nazis had some
>charming ways of expressing their hatred too, don't forget.
>
Do you think he's saying that atheists are 'less than human ' in any
way other than in not having what he calls 'a sense of the
transcendent'? Because if you do, I'd like you to show where he says
so; if you don't, then I don't see how you can equate what he's saying
to calling atheists sub-human.
As far as I can see, the worst that can be said for him is that he's
spoken without giving enough thought to how his words could be
misinterpreted. That's pretty bad in a public figure, but I don't see
it as good reason for the vitriol which has been expressed here.
Pete Barrett
pg
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 02:42:08 +0200, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>All the twisting and turning aside, one thing is certain. As soon as a
>>group
>>is described as sub-human, no matter what tone is used, carte blanche is
>>given to those amongst its followers that needed little excuse to treat
>>the
>>infidels with the same respect as we do other non-human species.
>>
> It's clear to me that he's *not* meaning to say that atheists are
> sub-human - I've argued the reasons why I think that elsewhere.
>
>>It doesn't matter what he wants, what he intended. That is irrelevant.
>>What
>>matters is that he is a respected leader amongst Christians and therefore
>>his words will be taken at face value by some amongst their number.
>>
> I think what he wanted or intended is very relevant. For him to
> unintentionally say something which could be interpreted as saying
> atheists are sub-human is very different from deliberately saying it.
> If someone says something, then I reckon to try to understand what
> they meant before I react to it, and I see no reason to treat the
> Cardinal any differently.
>
So *you* may be able to distinguish between the words and intended meaning.
Funnily enough though, we are not concerned with you particularly. We are
concerned with those with half a brain who simply take words at face value.
>>Your argument is similar to that used by Christians who play down the use
>>of
>>genocidal language used in the Bible. It wasn't what God "meant". Didn't
>>stop multitudes of believers for using that text to justify all manner of
>>atrocities over the ages, did it.
>>
>>It was an utterly irresponsible and stupid thing for the Cardinal to say,
>>the sort of thing that can even be responsible for deaths once the moron
>>and
>>psychologically inadequate factors amongst the masses are taken into
>>account.
>>
> Possibly, though I haven't noticed any news reports of Catholics
> attacking atheists because they now think they're sub-human. In fact,
> the only people who seem to have taken what he said to mean that are a
> few atheists, and not all atheists, either.
So sarcasm aside, whether you've noticed it or not, do you admit, yes or no,
that there is a potentially dangerous reaction from a minority along the
lines I described (and please don't repeat how his words affect you, that's
irrelevant) within the masses. There is also a secondary, more likely effect
of a greater schism in understanding, with believers hardly likely to
attempt to understand the views and arguments of those who were formerly
mere infidels, and now are sub-human infidels.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Pete Barrett" <peteb...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>news:4a1c2ad0...@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Tue, 26 May 2009 02:42:08 +0200, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>All the twisting and turning aside, one thing is certain. As soon as a
>>>group
>>>is described as sub-human, no matter what tone is used, carte blanche is
>>>given to those amongst its followers that needed little excuse to treat
>>>the
>>>infidels with the same respect as we do other non-human species.
>>>
>> It's clear to me that he's *not* meaning to say that atheists are
>> sub-human - I've argued the reasons why I think that elsewhere.
Even though that's what he said.
>And I clarified below....
>
>>>It doesn't matter what he wants, what he intended. That is irrelevant.
>>>What
>>>matters is that he is a respected leader amongst Christians and therefore
>>>his words will be taken at face value by some amongst their number.
>>>
>> I think what he wanted or intended is very relevant. For him to
>> unintentionally say something which could be interpreted as saying
>> atheists are sub-human is very different from deliberately saying it.
>> If someone says something, then I reckon to try to understand what
>> they meant before I react to it, and I see no reason to treat the
>> Cardinal any differently.
>>
>So *you* may be able to distinguish between the words and intended meaning.
>Funnily enough though, we are not concerned with you particularly. We are
>concerned with those with half a brain who simply take words at face value.
If he disn't mean what his own words said, he should have been more
careful.
We haven't seen his apology which leads one to think actually meant
what he said.
I wonder about those who try to spin it into something else.
Mike Jones
The guy knows full well what dirt he's "stumbling around" in and stirring
up. He's a professional, not some klutz with a few beers down him.
To even "stray" into that territory is a clear signal, just as Pope
Ratty's comments a few months ago were a clear signal its time for "the
faithful" to start kicking up some dust so the heathens don't get to
liking their new;y claimed freedoms too much.
This was a "ranging shot" event. Expect more based on the reactions to it.
GAFC, please!
Christopher A. Lee
>Responding to Pete Barrett:
>
>> On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:54:04 GMT, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>>
>>>Responding to Pete Barrett:
>>>
>>>> However, he believes them, so he thinks his conclusion follows. But
>>>> he's not saying anything about atheists being 'less than human' in any
>>>> way other than in lacking a sense of the transcendent. To call a group
>>>> 'sub-human' is surely to mean that they're less than human in many
>>>> ways - we're all thinking of the same examples of that, so I refer you
>>>> to those. What he's saying is not that.
Which he says "We all call God", imbecile.
>>>> Pete Barrett
>>>
>>>
>>>Stop making excuses for them and their behaviour. The Nazis had some
>>>charming ways of expressing their hatred too, don't forget.
>>>
>> Do you think he's saying that atheists are 'less than human ' in any way
>> other than in not having what he calls 'a sense of the transcendent'?
>> Because if you do, I'd like you to show where he says so; if you don't,
>> then I don't see how you can equate what he's saying to calling atheists
>> sub-human.
Barrett knows that it wasn't just "the transcendent" because the
Cardinal said "which we all call God".
Does he imagine lying by omission changes its meaning?
Or fools those his bogoted nastiness is directed at?
>> As far as I can see, the worst that can be said for him is that he's
>> spoken without giving enough thought to how his words could be
>> misinterpreted. That's pretty bad in a public figure, but I don't see it
>> as good reason for the vitriol which has been expressed here.
Why does the liar pretend ghetting what he deserved is "vitriol"?
>> Pete Barrett
>
>The guy knows full well what dirt he's "stumbling around" in and stirring
>up. He's a professional, not some klutz with a few beers down him.
He's the senior Catholic in England and Wales, telling English and
Welsh Catholics that we are less than human.
He believes it. As will plenty of his followers.
If he didn't really mean it he shouldn't have said it.
I don't know why Barrett is spinning what he said into something else.
Or why he lies about the reaction.
>To even "stray" into that territory is a clear signal, just as Pope
>Ratty's comments a few months ago were a clear signal its time for "the
>faithful" to start kicking up some dust so the heathens don't get to
>liking their new;y claimed freedoms too much.
As I've said elsewhere, if he had said that to my face he would have
got a well deserved, loud, less than polite earfull.
And would have been shocked by it because he is totally out of touch
with the real world beyond his religion.
Like most church leaders he lives in his own deluded little fantasy
world where he imagines he makes the rules for everybody else.
>This was a "ranging shot" event. Expect more based on the reactions to it.
>
>GAFC, please!
He won't. He seems to have a vested interest in it. Otherwise why
would he lie both by omission and aboutthe reaction.
Pete Barrett
>
>
>The guy knows full well what dirt he's "stumbling around" in and stirring
>up. He's a professional, not some klutz with a few beers down him.
>
>To even "stray" into that territory is a clear signal, just as Pope
>Ratty's comments a few months ago were a clear signal its time for "the
>faithful" to start kicking up some dust so the heathens don't get to
>liking their new;y claimed freedoms too much.
>
>This was a "ranging shot" event. Expect more based on the reactions to it.
>
>GAFC, please!
>
Well, if you seriously believe that what he said is some coded message
to other Christians to start persecuting atheists, then I certainly
can't prove it isn't. But I think it's a very jaundiced view, and I
think your seeing things which aren't there.
Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
You're the one who doesn't see what's there - that he said "we all
call it God" and that people who don't search for it are not quite
human.
Stop pretending.
>Pete Barrett
Why do you dishonestly put a spin on what the senile bigot's
nastiness?
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>So *you* may be able to distinguish between the words and intended meaning.
>Funnily enough though, we are not concerned with you particularly. We are
>concerned with those with half a brain who simply take words at face value.
>
If I can, so can (almost) anyone.
>...
>So sarcasm aside, w
I wasn't intending to be sarcastic, or even mildly ironic. If his
statement has led to any reaction from Christians, I haven't noticed
it.
>hether you've noticed it or not, do you admit, yes or no,
>that there is a potentially dangerous reaction from a minority along the
>lines I described (and please don't repeat how his words affect you, that's
>irrelevant) within the masses.
Well, given the reaction from people on this newsgroup, and what some
people here have understood him to be saying, I would have to say yes,
there is *potential* for a dangerous reaction. However:
1) It would never have occurred to me that any sane person could
interpret what he said the way it's been interpreted by some here.
2) The best proof of how likely such a reaction is is in what actually
happens, and I've seen no such dangerous reaction to date.
>There is also a secondary, more likely effect
>of a greater schism in understanding, with believers hardly likely to
>attempt to understand the views and arguments of those who were formerly
>mere infidels, and now are sub-human infidels.
>
If I'm right, and he didn't intend to say that atheists are sub-human,
then the reaction on this newsgroup seems to show that the gulf in
understanding is already very wide. Starting of with the belief that
they mean the worst is not the best way of understanding them, I would
say.
Pete Barrett
pg
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 21:18:09 +0200, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>
>>So *you* may be able to distinguish between the words and intended
>>meaning.
>>Funnily enough though, we are not concerned with you particularly. We are
>>concerned with those with half a brain who simply take words at face
>>value.
>>
> If I can, so can (almost) anyone.
Between what people can do if they used their brains, and what they actually
do, is a gap that throughout history has been filled by intolerance,
repression, cruelty, genocide, etc. That's the whole point. People don't use
their brains. They believe all sorts of rubbish, especially if it suits them
to believe it. As in this case.
>>So sarcasm aside, w
>
> I wasn't intending to be sarcastic, or even mildly ironic. If his
> statement has led to any reaction from Christians, I haven't noticed
> it.
>
>>hether you've noticed it or not, do you admit, yes or no,
>>that there is a potentially dangerous reaction from a minority along the
>>lines I described (and please don't repeat how his words affect you,
>>that's
>>irrelevant) within the masses.
>
> Well, given the reaction from people on this newsgroup, and what some
> people here have understood him to be saying, I would have to say yes,
> there is *potential* for a dangerous reaction. However:
>
It is nothing to do with the reaction on this ng. It is a straightforward
rational hypothesis whereby people are naive and easily influenced by
respected people in positions of authority, and if a respected Christian
describes non-believers as less than human, then the potential is there for
negative consequences.
> 1) It would never have occurred to me that any sane person could
> interpret what he said the way it's been interpreted by some here.
> 2) The best proof of how likely such a reaction is is in what actually
> happens, and I've seen no such dangerous reaction to date.
>
>>There is also a secondary, more likely effect
>>of a greater schism in understanding, with believers hardly likely to
>>attempt to understand the views and arguments of those who were formerly
>>mere infidels, and now are sub-human infidels.
>>
> If I'm right, and he didn't intend to say that atheists are sub-human,
> then the reaction on this newsgroup seems to show that the gulf in
> understanding is already very wide. Starting of with the belief that
> they mean the worst is not the best way of understanding them, I would
> say.
The notion of incompleteness, being less than human, seems pretty
straightforward to me. If there is anyone coming up with a contrived
argument, it is surely you, by attempting to read between the lines and
promote your unsubstantiated interpretation of his words.
This is surely argument for argument's sake on your part, as the Cardinal at
best made a blunder that may be seized upon by some of the more
fundamentalist Christians (ie not just Catholics) as justification for what
they have claimed all along, straight from the mouth of an important
Christian one step down from God's infallible mouthpiece on Earth. At worst
he actually believes what he said - and I, for one, am certain that he sees
non-believers as inferior, lacking, in some way. As do most Christians if
they were really honest with themselves, nothing new there.
I really don't see what is so hard to understand about fundamentalist
Christians in particular using incidents like this to justify adopting an
ever firmer stance and taking even less notice of opposing or different
views.
pg
Mike Jones
Sheesh! You do live in a nice tidy little world there!
10,000 years of political intrigue, veiled reference, deliberate
ommisions, deliberate inclusions, deliberate alusions, covert and overt
statements, calculated references, etc. where just the wrong tilt of an
eyebrow can mean death for millions, all slipped by you in that pleasant
place where, apparently, unless something is so big it blocks the sun, it
doesn't exist. "I have in my hand a piece of paper from Herr Hitler..."
C'mah! Nobody is THAT innocent or unaware! What is your agenda here Pete?
Pete Barrett
>> Well, if you seriously believe that what he said is some coded message
>> to other Christians to start persecuting atheists, then I certainly
>> can't prove it isn't. But I think it's a very jaundiced view, and I
>> think your seeing things which aren't there.
>>
>> Pete Barrett
>
>
>Sheesh! You do live in a nice tidy little world there!
>
>10,000 years of political intrigue, veiled reference, deliberate
>ommisions, deliberate inclusions, deliberate alusions, covert and overt
>statements, calculated references, etc. where just the wrong tilt of an
>eyebrow can mean death for millions, all slipped by you in that pleasant
>place where, apparently, unless something is so big it blocks the sun, it
>doesn't exist. "I have in my hand a piece of paper from Herr Hitler..."
>
I have to admit that I would have been taken in by Hitler, just as
Chamberlain was. On the other hand, I didn't think Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction in 2003. I do like to see some proof
before I believe in something.
>C'mah! Nobody is THAT innocent or unaware!
>
Obviously I am <g>.
>What is your agenda here Pete?
No agenda. Or not a hidden one, anyway. I like to discuss philosophy
from an atheist perspective, but in doing so I try to be fair-minded.
Pete Barrett
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>>
>It is nothing to do with the reaction on this ng. It is a straightforward
>rational hypothesis whereby people are naive and easily influenced by
>respected people in positions of authority, and if a respected Christian
>describes non-believers as less than human, then the potential is there for
>negative consequences.
>
There's always the *potential* for negative consequences, but I don't
feel inclined to blame someone for saying something if the probability
of negative consequences is small enough. I don't think the
probability is high here; and this at least we will know in time. As
far as I can see, the worst consequences so far has been on this
newsgroup - if there's nothing worse than that in six months, I think
we can say there have been no major negative consequences.
>
>The notion of incompleteness, being less than human, seems pretty
>straightforward to me. If there is anyone coming up with a contrived
>argument, it is surely you, by attempting to read between the lines and
>promote your unsubstantiated interpretation of his words.
>
We're *both* interpreting his words, and we both start from much the
same positioin when doing it, but we interpret them differently.
Obviously, we each think our own interpretation is the right one; but
if we're honest with ourselves, we'll see that, without access to the
inside of his mind, each interpretation is no more and no less
substantiated than the other.
>This is surely argument for argument's sake on your part, as the Cardinal at
>best made a blunder that may be seized upon by some of the more
>fundamentalist Christians (ie not just Catholics) as justification for what
>they have claimed all along, straight from the mouth of an important
>Christian one step down from God's infallible mouthpiece on Earth. At worst
>he actually believes what he said - and I, for one, am certain that he sees
>non-believers as inferior, lacking, in some way.
Yes, he's said so - but he *hasn't* said that he thinks that atheists
are 'lacking' in any other way. To immediately rush off and claim that
he's calling atheists 'sub-human', as some have here, and with all
that phrase implies, is to my mind going far beyond what the facts
warrant.
>As do most Christians if
>they were really honest with themselves, nothing new there.
>
>I really don't see what is so hard to understand about fundamentalist
>Christians in particular using incidents like this to justify adopting an
>ever firmer stance and taking even less notice of opposing or different
>views.
>
I think fundamentalist Christians (almost universally extreme
Protestants) are unlikely to do something on the say-so of a Cardinal.
As for Catholics - well, I don't see any Catholic mobs rampaging
through the streets breaking atheists' windows, which suggests that
those he might be most expected to influence *haven't* interpreted it
the way you fear.
Pete Barrett
Christopher A. Lee
Barrett) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 May 2009 21:56:12 +0200, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>It is nothing to do with the reaction on this ng. It is a straightforward
>>rational hypothesis whereby people are naive and easily influenced by
>>respected people in positions of authority, and if a respected Christian
>>describes non-believers as less than human, then the potential is there for
>>negative consequences.
>>
>There's always the *potential* for negative consequences, but I don't
>feel inclined to blame someone for saying something if the probability
>of negative consequences is small enough. I don't think the
>probability is high here; and this at least we will know in time. As
>far as I can see, the worst consequences so far has been on this
>newsgroup - if there's nothing worse than that in six months, I think
>we can say there have been no major negative consequences.
There has been an outcry from atheists in every forum where I have
seen it mentioned.
Why did you keep lying by omission by neglecting to mention that he
said of this supposed trenscendental we are less than human for not
seaching for, "which we all call God"?
Why do you put a spin on it?
Mike Jones
[...]
>>> Well, if you seriously believe that what he said is some coded message
>>> to other Christians to start persecuting atheists, then I certainly
>>> can't prove it isn't. But I think it's a very jaundiced view, and I
>>> think your seeing things which aren't there.
>>>
>>> Pete Barrett
>>
>>
>>Sheesh! You do live in a nice tidy little world there!
>>
>>10,000 years of political intrigue, veiled reference, deliberate
>>ommisions, deliberate inclusions, deliberate alusions, covert and overt
>>statements, calculated references, etc. where just the wrong tilt of an
>>eyebrow can mean death for millions, all slipped by you in that pleasant
>>place where, apparently, unless something is so big it blocks the sun,
>>it doesn't exist. "I have in my hand a piece of paper from Herr
>>Hitler..."
>>
> I have to admit that I would have been taken in by Hitler, just as
> Chamberlain was. On the other hand, I didn't think Saddam Hussein had
> weapons of mass destruction in 2003. I do like to see some proof before
> I believe in something.
What to "believe in"? We're not talking about "believing" here, were
talking about probabilites. When someone in the atheist-basher's position
even just drifts toward a certain perspective on a subject, he's subtley
"addressing the issue", and in light of Pope Ratty's earlier exhortation
that its time the faithful "did something"... (The pattern in those dots
becoming clearer yet?)
To omit the appropriate phrasing that would have made it clear he wasn't
saying what he clearly has said, albeit "between the lines", is to lend
credence to the assumptions that can be drawn. Thats a classic political
manouver. "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him..." etc.
You don't just dribble on in that direction without a purpose. This is a
highly competant player in the public media arena, not some bungling old
fart who didn't even know he was being recorded.
What they /don't/ say says at least as much as what they do say, and
there is a lot he didn't say alongside what he did say.
Paranoia? Go read Machiavelli. All will become clear.
Also note that there has been no "clarifications" since the statements
were made. More than a tad curious, that, nes pas?
Mike Jones
>>I really don't see what is so hard to understand about fundamentalist
>>Christians in particular using incidents like this to justify adopting
>>an ever firmer stance and taking even less notice of opposing or
>>different views.
>>
> I think fundamentalist Christians (almost universally extreme
> Protestants) are unlikely to do something on the say-so of a Cardinal.
> As for Catholics - well, I don't see any Catholic mobs rampaging through
> the streets breaking atheists' windows, which suggests that those he
> might be most expected to influence *haven't* interpreted it the way you
> fear.
I'm smelling keyword-loaded agendas here Pete. Seriously. You're too
bright to act this dim and get away with it.
Pete Barrett
>
>
>What to "believe in"? We're not talking about "believing" here, were
>talking about probabilites. When someone in the atheist-basher's position
>even just drifts toward a certain perspective on a subject, he's subtley
>"addressing the issue", and in light of Pope Ratty's earlier exhortation
>that its time the faithful "did something"... (The pattern in those dots
>becoming clearer yet?)
>
>To omit the appropriate phrasing that would have made it clear he wasn't
>saying what he clearly has said, albeit "between the lines", is to lend
>credence to the assumptions that can be drawn. Thats a classic political
>manouver. "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him..." etc.
I think you'll find that's poetry, not politics. Here's some more by
the same poet: "How easy is a bush supposed a bear."
>
>You don't just dribble on in that direction without a purpose. This is a
>highly competant player in the public media arena, not some bungling old
>fart who didn't even know he was being recorded.
>
>What they /don't/ say says at least as much as what they do say, and
>there is a lot he didn't say alongside what he did say.
>
Well I can't argue with that, can I? The fact that he *didn't* say
something must be proof positive that he meant it<g>! I have enough
problems trying to understand what *is* said, without
>Paranoia? Go read Machiavelli. All will become clear.
>
>Also note that there has been no "clarifications" since the statements
>were made. More than a tad curious, that, nes pas?
>
Has anyone asked for one? As far as I'm aware, no one outside this
newsgroup has even noticed what he said. Obviously, somebody must have
done, but it hasn't made the headlines. If nobody makes a fuss, people
usually don't bother clarifying what they've said. If you really think
it's religious hatred, you could always complain to the police.
Pete Barrett
Pete Barrett
>
>I'm smelling keyword-loaded agendas here Pete. Seriously. You're too
>bright to act this dim and get away with it.
>
You'd better tell me what they are, then, because I'm not aware of
them.
Pete Barrett
Mike Jones
[...]
>>What they /don't/ say says at least as much as what they do say, and
>>there is a lot he didn't say alongside what he did say.
>>
> Well I can't argue with that, can I? The fact that he *didn't* say
> something must be proof positive that he meant it<g>! I have enough
> problems trying to understand what *is* said, without
>
>>Paranoia? Go read Machiavelli. All will become clear.
>>
>>Also note that there has been no "clarifications" since the statements
>>were made. More than a tad curious, that, nes pas?
>>
> Has anyone asked for one? As far as I'm aware, no one outside this
> newsgroup has even noticed what he said. Obviously, somebody must have
> done, but it hasn't made the headlines. If nobody makes a fuss, people
> usually don't bother clarifying what they've said. If you really think
> it's religious hatred, you could always complain to the police.
You're trolling, or at least playing games here. The difference between
your competance in composing sentences and paragraphs and your feigned
utter lack of comprehension don't add up.
Good game, but its done with. I'm bored.
FWIW though... If you genuinely don't have a clue here, I don't fancy the
job of taking you through "blindingly obvious political logic for dummies
and children under three years old" right from page one. You'll need to
recognise you have a problem with selective (lack of) perception and look
to fixing that for yourself.
S'been fun.
Mike Jones
See my other reply on this thread of this date.