Do atheists defend Christians?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
to be persecuted?

http://www.aina.org/news/20091016174755.htm

Washington -- International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that
on October 6, members of the Taliban sent threatening letters in
Sargodha, Pakistan warning Christian leaders to convert to Islam or
face dire consequences.

A copy of the letter obtained by ICC warns Christians to convert to
Islam, pay Jizya tax (an Islamic tax imposed on religious minorities)
or leave the country. If Christians refuse to accept the choices given
to them, the letter explains that they "would be killed, their
property and homes would be burnt to ashes and their women would be
treated as sex slaves. And they themselves would be responsible for
this."

[Dev]

I just started yet another thread about Christians burning Christian
children for "witchcraft". I have never seen a single Christian on
this group bring attention to this epidemic. When I do it, they tend
to dodge and marginalize the issue. Christians will defend
Christianity, but they won't defend Christian children who are being
murdered by fellow Christians. Anyone who really wants to protect
Christian children wants to eliminate Christianity from the planet.

On Oct 18, 10:41 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[Trance Gemini]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
to be persecuted?

I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious conflicts.

In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those people off.

AFAIC this is a problem that those religions will have to sort out amongst themselves and if they only solution they can come up with is killing each other then that's their problem and I have no interest in getting involved.

If this were to occur in a Secular state then it's up to the state to intervene, assuming that laws are being broken.

If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge a theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions.

http://www.aina.org/news/20091016174755.htm

Washington -- International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that
on October 6, members of the Taliban sent threatening letters in
Sargodha, Pakistan warning Christian leaders to convert to Islam or
face dire consequences.

A copy of the letter obtained by ICC warns Christians to convert to
Islam, pay Jizya tax (an Islamic tax imposed on religious minorities)
or leave the country. If Christians refuse to accept the choices given
to them, the letter explains that they "would be killed, their
property and homes would be burnt to ashes and their women would be
treated as sex slaves. And they themselves would be responsible for
this."

--
High Priestess of Ribbonology
God Is A Ribbon!
All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Sky
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[hucktunes]

On Oct 18, 1:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge a
> theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for their own
> actions and the consequences of those actions.

You should have been a defense attorney at the Nuremberg trials.

On Oct 18, 1:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[Trance Gemini]

Only in the looney tunes delusions of Huck World where the Nazis didn't attack the atheists first because they weren't really Christians.

[hucktunes]

I compliment your brilliance and you reward me with some some sort of
insulting blather like the defendants at the Nuremberg trials.

[Trance Gemini]

Only in the looney tunes delusions of Huck World would the following be considered a compliment on one's "brilliance".

Huck said:
"You should have been a defense attorney at the Nuremberg trials."

[Timothy 1:4a]

I do not think it's OK.

I'm told the Quran says that non-Muslims must pay a submission tax in
an Islamic state, so the Taliban is trying to enforce a law from their
holy book. But quite apart from the fact that I do not think the
Quran is God-inspired, I think that the threats are way out of
proportion.

Do you know if it's a large or small tax? Are they just trying to
assert their authority in the region and make people submit to their
rule, or are they also trying to raise serious funds?

Btw, you may have seen me post before about the Umayyad Caliphate (661
to 750) and how it fell because it decided to ONLY collect taxes from
Jews and Christians. There was such a rush to convert to Islam that
their tax base collapsed and they were overthrown!

On Oct 18, 12:41 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[hucktunes]

I guess I was being facetious. Trance said:

"If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to
challenge a
theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for
their own
actions and the consequences of those actions."

They would be responsible when they

"would be killed, their
property and homes would be burnt to ashes and their women would be
treated as sex slaves. And they themselves would be responsible for
this."

Brilliant. As brilliant as the Taliban. All must submit to Islam and
Trance Gemini.

[Trance Gemini]

As the actual point continues to sail over looney tunes head in delusional Huck World.

[hucktunes]

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I
was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I
was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not
a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Trance Gemini]

Looney Tunes delusional rants and the fact that the actual point of my comments continues to elude him in his delusional Huck World isn't surprising.

Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.

So it's also not surprising that Looney Tunes would, somewhat ironically, use it in his own delusional rants.

He'd rather derail a good thread and a constructive discussion for the sole purpose of turning it into an abuse fest.

Why?

Looney Tunes likes to harbor grudges and stalk people while misrepresenting what they say because ... well ... he's just a nasty piece of shit.

The following is what I actually said, his willfully ignorant inability to comprehend it notwithstanding.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
to be persecuted?

I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious conflicts.

In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those people off.

AFAIC this is a problem that those religions will have to sort out amongst themselves and if they only solution they can come up with is killing each other then that's their problem and I have no interest in getting involved.

If this were to occur in a Secular state then it's up to the state to intervene, assuming that laws are being broken.

If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge a theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions.

*Note. Most intelligent people will realize that the *this* I'm talking about refers to two competing religions attempting to impose their religious doctrine on each other.

[hucktunes]

On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.

A strategy which you utilize to the utmost. And now you defend fascism
when Christians are the object of violence. That is the point that
seems to elude you.

On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looney Tunes delusional rants and the fact that the actual point of my
> comments continues to elude him in his delusional Huck World isn't
> surprising.
>
> Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.
>
> So it's also not surprising that Looney Tunes would, somewhat ironically,
> use it in his own delusional rants.
>
> He'd rather derail a good thread and a constructive discussion for the sole
> purpose of turning it into an abuse fest.
>
> Why?
>
> Looney Tunes likes to harbor grudges and stalk people while misrepresenting
> what they say because ... well ... he's just a nasty piece of shit.
>
> The following is what I actually said, his willfully ignorant inability to
> comprehend it notwithstanding.
>

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
> > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
> > to be persecuted?
>
> I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious
> conflicts.
>
> In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because
> they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those
> people off.
>
> AFAIC this is a problem that those religions will have to sort out amongst
> themselves and if they only solution they can come up with is killing each
> other then that's their problem and I have no interest in getting involved.
>
> If this were to occur in a Secular state then it's up to the state to
> intervene, assuming that laws are being broken.
>
> If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge a
> theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for their own
> actions and the consequences of those actions.
>

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, hucktunes <bob....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.

A strategy which you utilize to the utmost. And now you defend fascism
when Christians are the object of violence. That is the point that
seems to elude you.

And only a delusional Loon would come to such a bizarre conclusion based on what I actually said.

Yes in Huck World, Fascism came first and is the "foundation of religion". <snicker>

Yeah. Okay Huck.

Of course, even if one were to accept the bizarre Huck World scenario, the fact that simply describes a scenario where two fascists want to impose their doctrine on each other and kill each other to do so, apparently escapes Looney Tunes and we atheists are "nazis" if we object to jumping into the middle of that pile of shit.

Of course that's also irrelevant in Huck World since Huck is God there and he is choosing to be willfully ignorant and incapable of reading.

Please provide actual evidence that I use the Hitlerian strategy of lying.

Oh. I'm sorry I forgot. You haven't got any and don't require any.

You just like to slander and smear people in order to provoke abuse fests.

You are nothing more than a nasty piece of shit who holds grudges, stalks people and provokes abuse fests by lying.

Go fuck yourself Huck.

Here's what I actually said:

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
to be persecuted?

I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious conflicts.

In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those people off.

AFAIC this is a problem that those religions will have to sort out amongst themselves and if they only solution they can come up with is killing each other then that's their problem and I have no interest in getting involved.

If this were to occur in a Secular state then it's up to the state to intervene, assuming that laws are being broken.

If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge a theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions.

*Note. Most intelligent people will realize that the *this* I'm talking about refers to two competing religions attempting to impose their religious doctrine on each other.

[hucktunes]

On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Yes in Huck World, Fascism came first and is the "foundation of religion".
> <snicker>
>
> Yeah. Okay Huck.

A good example of your strategy:

On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.

On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 18, 3:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
> > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
> > to be persecuted?
>
> I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious
> conflicts.
>
> In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because
> they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those
> people off.

Or to summarize - yes -you think it's okay that Christians are
persecuted, because they deserve it. That sounds entirely rational and
compassionate... After all - who cares about the genocide in Sudan -
they deserved it! :/

[Drafterman]

Apparently you are not familiar with the common usage of quotes
whereby the word being quoted is done so simply because the word was
already in use but the person doing the quoting does not exactly agree
with its usage.

That is, the "persecution" isn't actually "persecution".

Fail.

> > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Ma-choo! <thor...@aol.com> wrote:

On Oct 18, 3:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>

> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
> > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
> > to be persecuted?
>
> I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious
> conflicts.
>
> In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because
> they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those
> people off.

Or to summarize - yes -you think it's okay that Christians are
persecuted, because they deserve it. That sounds entirely rational and
compassionate... After all - who cares about the genocide in Sudan -
they deserved it!   :/

Is it okay for African women and children to be brutalized and murdered by Christians for no other reason than their delusional superstitious fantasies about demons and witches?

If not, which Christian organizations are actively helping those children and telling those Christians that this is wrong?

Secular Humanist organizations are there doing that.

And the price they are paying is that they are being targeted with threats and abuse.

Do you know how to spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?


 

[Trance Gemini]

On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes in Huck World, Fascism came first and is the "foundation of religion".
> > <snicker>
>
> > Yeah. Okay Huck.
>
> A good example of your strategy:
>
> On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.

Huck said:
Religion is just another tool of the fascists.
....
It is the root of all religion.

Source: http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/c9184a0436e1a7e0?hl=en

Hmmmm. Now who's the liar? Oh Gee. It's Huck! Proven over and over
again.

Yet Huck has never been able to demonstrate that I've lied about
anything even once.

(This is where Looney Tunes starts equivocating on the use of the word
"root" versus the use of word "foundation" in order divert the issue
from the fact that he lied by falsely implying that I was lying about
yet another one of his insane "theories" of the world.)

Hitlerian strategy 1. Tell blatant lies to support your claims and
discredit the opposition.
Hitlerian strategy 2. Always accuse the other person of doing what
you're doing.

That is, if you're lying your face off be sure to accuse them of lying
in order to cause as much confusion as possible over what the real
issue is.

[hucktunes]

On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.
>
> > A strategy which you utilize to the utmost. And now you defend fascism
> > when Christians are the object of violence. That is the point that
> > seems to elude you.
>
> And only a delusional Loon would come to such a bizarre conclusion based on
> what I actually said.

And what you said is:

If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge
a
theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for
their own
actions and the consequences of those actions.

You can't stand being criticized for your warped view of the world.

On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[Trance Gemini]

On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes in Huck World, Fascism came first and is the "foundation of religion".
> > <snicker>
>
> > Yeah. Okay Huck.
>

> A good example of your strategy:
>

> On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.

Huck said:
Religion is just another tool of the fascists.
....
 It is the root of all religion.

Source: http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/c9184a0436e1a7e0?hl=en

Hmmmm. Now who's the liar? Oh Gee. It's Huck! Proven over and over
again.

Yet Huck has never been able to demonstrate that I've lied about
anything even once.

(This is where Looney Tunes either starts equivocating on the use of the word
"root" versus the use of the word "foundation" or comes up with another sleazy strategy in order to divert the issue from the fact that he lied by falsely implying that I was lying about yet another one of his insane "theories" of the world.)

Hitlerian strategy 1. Tell blatant lies to support your claims and
discredit the opposition.
Hitlerian strategy 2. Always accuse the other person of doing what
you're doing.

That is, if you're lying your face off be sure to accuse them of lying
in order to cause as much confusion as possible over what the real
issue is.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM, hucktunes <bob....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.
>
> > A strategy which you utilize to the utmost. And now you defend fascism
> > when Christians are the object of violence. That is the point that
> > seems to elude you.
>
> And only a delusional Loon would come to such a bizarre conclusion based on
> what I actually said.

And what you said is:

If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge
a
theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for
their own
actions and the consequences of those actions.

You can't stand being criticized for your warped view of the world.

And follows is what I actually said (unquotemined and in context) unlike Looney Tunes gross misrepresentation and distortion.

[Daniel T.]

On Oct 18, 12:41 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
> come from other Christians?

Why is it that christians never protest the persecution of other
peoples by christians?

> Do atheists think it's OK for Christians to be persecuted?

Why do you think that a person's religious beliefs must be known in
order to decide whether or not he/she is worthy of persecution?

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 3:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
> > > > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
> > > > to be persecuted?
>
> > > I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious
> > > conflicts.
>
> > > In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because
> > > they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks
> > those
> > > people off.
>
> > Or to summarize - yes -you think it's okay that Christians are
> > persecuted, because they deserve it. That sounds entirely rational and
> > compassionate... After all - who cares about the genocide in Sudan -
> > they deserved it!   :/
>
> Is it okay for African women and children to be brutalized and murdered by
> Christians for no other reason than their delusional superstitious fantasies
> about demons and witches?

Of course not - and it's either ignorant or dishonest of you to imply
that those beliefs are causally connected to Christianity - witchcraft/
animism/etc have a long history in African cultures which was there
long before Christianity took hold - so this isn't a Christian
phenomenon, it's a holdover from pre-Christian societies.

But why are you changing the subject? What are you telling me - you'll
only condemn an action if it allows you to look down disdainfully on
Christians? Like most groups, Christians are also persecuted - and
like Ranjit's example you responded to - they are persecuted for
merely being Christian in a non-Christian society. Do you condemn this
-or not?

>
> If not, which Christian organizations are actively helping those children
> and telling those Christians that this is wrong?
>
> Secular Humanist organizations are there doing that.

Great. Good for you.

>
> And the price they are paying is that they are being targeted with threats
> and abuse.
>
> Do you know how to spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

Save your self-righteousness- above you condemn Christians for
proselytizing (which, btw, isn't a crime. If you don't like it, then
walk off. It doesn't justify violence..wtf) - while in other threads
you seem to revel in the running tally of 'Conversions: 0/
Deconversions: 1" for the thread. That's hypocrisy.

As to your point, those are practices I obviously condemn, they're pre-
Christian holdovers, and I'm not making any death threats to your
humanist friends. So where exactly is my hypocrisy?

[Trance Gemini]

Tell the Christian Churches in Africa that.

And tell the Christians groups that threatened the Secular Humanists who *are* trying to help those Christian Children and made *those* threats In The Name Of Jesus and God.

The only dishonesty here is yours.

This is an Inconvenient Truth that Christians continue to ignore both on this site and off.

Your hypocrisy is glaring.

But why are you changing the subject? 

What are you telling me - you'll
only condemn an action if it allows you to look down disdainfully on
Christians? Like most groups, Christians are also persecuted - and
like Ranjit's example you responded to - they are persecuted for
merely being Christian in a non-Christian society. Do you condemn this
-or not?

Your Straw men and insults have no bearing on the opinion that I expressed clearly.

Your willful ignorance when it comes to your incapability of reading my opinion is your problem not mine.
 

[hucktunes]

On Oct 19, 10:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is, if you're lying your face off be sure to accuse them of lying
> in order to cause as much confusion as possible over what the real
> issue is.

You are accusing me of accusing you of lying. Where in this thread
have I accused you of lying? Here's the deal. You hate to be disagreed
with. I disagreed with you about Ken and you've been accusing me of
being racist and delusional ever since. I chide you for posting that
Christians in Afghanistan are responsible for any violence that comes
their way and you go through the roof with rants, links to other
discussions, even going so far as to state "in Huck World since Huck
is God" and that I''m a nasty piece of shit. All because I chided you.
You are a real sicko.

On Oct 19, 10:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 8:35 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes in Huck World, Fascism came first and is the "foundation of religion".
> > > <snicker>
>
> > > Yeah. Okay Huck.
>
> > A good example of your strategy:
>
> > On Oct 19, 6:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Repeating a lie over and again is a Hitlerian strategy.
>
> Huck said:
> Religion is just another tool of the fascists.
> ....
>  It is the root of all religion.
>

> Source:http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/c9184a0436e...

[Trance Gemini]

No Looney Tunes. Here's the deal.

You're an asshole carrying a grudge.

That's why you deliberately provoked this ugliness and derailed this
entire thread so that no reasonable discussion can happen.

Neither DK or Turner or Dev is around for you to abuse so you picked
me.

And You're the asshole who can't handle disagreement.

I bowed out of that thread a long time ago and kept getting dragged
back in because of your incessant lies both blatant and through
implication.

Now leave me alone you sleazy sick son of a bitch.

Go find someone else to abuse with your pathetic lies.

[Trance Gemini]

[Timothy 1:4a]

However, Dman and Trance, I believe this is indeed a persecution. The
Taliban wants to be the government in this region and govern by sharia
law; collecting this tax from Christians is part of sharia law; the
Taliban will go to any lengths (or at least threaten to go to any
lengths) to get obedience from the Christians. It's persecution.

No doubt the fact that they see the Christian west as their oppressor
makes them more vicious to local Christians. But it's still
persecution.

> > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103-Hide quoted text -

[hucktunes]

On Oct 19, 2:46 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No Looney Tunes. Here's the deal.
>
> You're an asshole carrying a grudge.

I chided you. Big deal.

> That's why you deliberately provoked this ugliness and derailed this
> entire thread so that no reasonable discussion can happen.

Anybody that criticizes you deliberately provokes ugliness and derails
the topic.

> Neither DK or Turner or Dev is around for you to abuse so you picked
> me.

Neither DK nor Dev made a comment worthy of criticism.

> And You're the asshole who can't handle disagreement.

I've been handling your disagreeing personality and insults for
months.

> I bowed out of that thread a long time ago and kept getting dragged
> back in because of your incessant lies both blatant and through
> implication.

You relished participating in all six or seven of those threads.

> Now leave me alone you sleazy sick son of a bitch.
>
> Go find someone else to abuse with your pathetic lies.

I haven't lied, I chided you and have replied to your insults and
deflections.

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

However, Dman and Trance, I believe this is indeed a persecution. The
Taliban wants to be the government in this region

Well they might want to but unless they are they can't impose it and Pakistan, which is the government can intervene if they choose to.

It's up to the Pakistani government and it's them, the Christians should be appealing to.
 

and govern by sharia law; collecting this tax from Christians is part of sharia law; the
Taliban will go to any lengths (or at least threaten to go to any
lengths) to get obedience from the Christians.

Like I said, they should be appealing to the Pakistani government. There is no indication (unless I missed something) that they've exercised that option.

If they were living in a Taliban run country then they would be obligated to follow the laws of that country whether they like them or not.

They could protest it and appeal to the UN but they should expect that living in a Muslim Theocracy is going to require them to follow Sharia Law in the same way that Muslims living in a Christian Theocracy should expect that they are going to be required to follow Christian laws and in the same way that living in a Secular country that they would be expected to.

So how is it persecution?
 

[Trance Gemini]

Bug off. I have nothing more to say to you.

Like I said go and find someone else to abuse.

[Trance Gemini]

Bug off.

I have no interest in your stupid games.

Find someone else to abuse with your lies.

[Drafterman]

I admit that I was only speaking to what I interpreted as use of the
quotes without looking into the actual referenced situation.

> > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103-Hidequoted text -

[hucktunes]

If the Taliban were indeed the government I think they would have the
right to impose any tax that they felt they could get away with. But
not under the threat of burning, killing and raping those that refused
to pay the tax. I would support the Christians in spirit but I sure
wouldn't go there as a tourist and meddle in their affairs.

> > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103-Hidequoted text -

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 19, 5:02 pm, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Is it okay for African women and children to be brutalized and murdered by
> > Christians for no other reason than their delusional superstitious fantasies
> > about demons and witches?
>
> Of course not - and it's either ignorant or dishonest of you to imply
> that those beliefs are causally connected to Christianity -

Is the belief that witches must be killed not connected to the Bible?
Is it a holdover from pre-Christian societies? Before Christianity
came to Nigeria, did Nigerians kill witches? Did Nigerians kill their
children after accusing them of witchcraft?

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Oct 19, 6:19 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However, Dman and Trance, I believe this is indeed a persecution. The
> > Taliban wants to be the government in this region
>
> Well they might want to but unless they are they can't impose it and
> Pakistan, which is the government can intervene if they choose to.
>
> It's up to the Pakistani government and it's them, the Christians should be
> appealing to.

That's correct, the Pakistani govt should be protecting these
Christians. But there's low-level civil war in northwestern Pakistan,
and the central govt's ability to protect them is very doubtful. If I
were a Christian is this area I would be scared white by this threat.
If I could not leave, I would either convert to Islam or pony up the
cash. And if you convert, you still have to worry that an Islamic
inquisition will question the believability of your conversion and
come after you -- which is exactly what happened to many Jews and
Muslims who converted to Christianity in Ferdinand and Isabella's
Spain, after the 1492 law requiring them to convert or get out.

ranjit asked 2 questions:
1/ Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem

to come from other Christians?

The answer is that they are the most aware of it and relate the most
to the victims. However, everyone should deplore persecution this
blatant.
2/ Do atheists think it's OK for Christians to be persecuted?
My own answer is, no, absolutely not OK.

> > and govern by sharia law; collecting this tax from Christians is part of
> > sharia law; the
> > Taliban will go to any lengths (or at least threaten to go to any
> > lengths) to get obedience from the Christians.
>
> Like I said, they should be appealing to the Pakistani government. There is
> no indication (unless I missed something) that they've exercised that
> option.

I guess that's part of it - you don't know the context. The Taliban is
a competing government in some rural areas of Pakistan, and uses those
areas as bases for action in Afghanistan.

> If they were living in a Taliban run country then they would be obligated to
> follow the laws of that country whether they like them or not.
>
> They could protest it and appeal to the UN but they should expect that
> living in a Muslim Theocracy is going to require them to follow Sharia Law
> in the same way that Muslims living in a Christian Theocracy should expect
> that they are going to be required to follow Christian laws and in the same
> way that living in a Secular country that they would be expected to.
>
> So how is it persecution?

It is persecution because the Taliban is not the government of
Pakistan; they are terrorists extorting money, by extremely realistic
and believable threats of terror, from people living in a secular
Muslim society.

In a land governed by Sharia Law it would still be persecution, just
as the anti-Jew laws of 1930s Germany were persecution. But it would
be at a reasonable level, would carry reasonable legal penalties for
non-compliance, and be "justified" by their holy book which
unfortunately requires this persecution.

As a mitigating factor, the Quran requires rich Muslims to support the
community in other ways and non-Muslims are of course exempt from that
requirement.

> > It's persecution.
>
> > No doubt the fact that they see the Christian west as their oppressor
> > makes them more vicious to local Christians. But it's still
> > persecution.

<snip for brevity>

[Timothy 1:4a]

I agree. I have occasionally been late on my tax payments and the
Canadian govt has never threatened to burn, kill or rape even one
member of my family.

> > > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103-Hi...text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 19, 6:19 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However, Dman and Trance, I believe this is indeed a persecution. The
> > Taliban wants to be the government in this region
>
> Well they might want to but unless they are they can't impose it and
> Pakistan, which is the government can intervene if they choose to.
>
> It's up to the Pakistani government and it's them, the Christians should be
> appealing to.

That's correct, the Pakistani govt should be protecting these
Christians. But there's low-level civil war in northwestern Pakistan,
and the central govt's ability to protect them is very doubtful.

So every area in the world that is under threat of civil war where the governments ability to protect the population from goons of various kinds have a "persecuted" population?

According to your logic that is the case.
 

No it wouldn't be. It wouldn't be right but it wouldn't be persecution either. It would be the law and would apply (based on the article) to *all* "infidels".
 

just
as the anti-Jew laws of 1930s Germany were persecution.

Are you actually trying to claim that Sharia Law which requires that *all* infidels are required to pay a tax is the SAME as anti-semitic laws which *actively* discriminated against Jews only and treated Jews as sub-human and which resulted in the Holocaust and which amounted to the most malicious persecution of a people in recent history.???

You can't be serious.
 
Think about what you're saying here Timmy.

But it would
be at a reasonable level, would carry reasonable legal penalties for
non-compliance, and be "justified" by their holy book which
unfortunately requires this persecution.

It places a tax on non-believers. This is discriminatory but it is not persecution.
 

As a mitigating factor, the Quran requires rich Muslims to support the
community in other ways and non-Muslims are of course exempt from that
requirement.

> > It's persecution.
>
> > No doubt the fact that they see the Christian west as their oppressor
> > makes them more vicious to local Christians. But it's still
> > persecution.

<snip for brevity>

[Trance Gemini]

Timmy. May I also point out that the same demands were made of the Sunni Muslims.

Are they being "persecuted" too?

[Dev]

How would we know if huck was being "facetious"? I'm curious on this
point.

On Oct 19, 5:10 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the actual point continues to sail over looney tunes head in delusional
> Huck World.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I guess I was being facetious. Trance said:
>
> > "If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to
> > challenge a
> > theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for
> > their own
> > actions and the consequences of those actions."
>

> > They would be responsible when they

>
> > "would be killed, their
> > property and homes would be burnt to ashes and their women would be
> > treated as sex slaves. And they themselves would be responsible for
> > this."
>

> > Brilliant. As brilliant as the Taliban. All must submit to Islam and
> > Trance Gemini.
>
> > On Oct 18, 7:35 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Only in the looney tunes delusions of Huck World would the following be
> > > considered a compliment on one's "brilliance".
>
> > > Huck said:
> > > "You should have been a defense attorney at the Nuremberg trials."
>
> > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:25 PM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I compliment your brilliance and you reward me with some some sort of
> > > > insulting blather like the defendants at the Nuremberg trials.
>
> > > > On Oct 18, 4:04 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Only in the looney tunes delusions of Huck World where the Nazis
> > didn't
> > > > > attack the atheists first because they weren't really Christians.
>
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:26 PM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

>
> > > > > > On Oct 18, 1:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to
> > > > challenge a
> > > > > > > theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible
> > for
> > > > their
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > actions and the consequences of those actions.
>

> > > > > > You should have been a defense attorney at the Nuremberg trials.

>
> > > > > > On Oct 18, 1:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> > > > > > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > > > > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians
> > seem
> > > > to

> > > > > > > > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for
> > > > Christians
> > > > > > > > to be persecuted?
>

> > > > > > > I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in
> > religious
> > > > > > > conflicts.
>
> > > > > > > In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted"
> > > > because
> > > > > > > they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it
> > ticks
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > people off.
>

> > > > > > > AFAIC this is a problem that those religions will have to sort
> > out
> > > > > > amongst
> > > > > > > themselves and if they only solution they can come up with is
> > killing
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > other then that's their problem and I have no interest in getting
> > > > > > involved.
>

> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > > > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > > > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
>
> > > --
> > > High Priestess of Ribbonology
> > > God Is A Ribbon!
> > > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://
> > science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103
>
> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -

[Doris Ragland]

yes I think they do...why?....they have hearts...

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Oct 19, 10:10 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 6:19 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > However, Dman and Trance, I believe this is indeed a persecution. The
> > > > Taliban wants to be the government in this region
>
> > > Well they might want to but unless they are they can't impose it and
> > > Pakistan, which is the government can intervene if they choose to.
>
> > > It's up to the Pakistani government and it's them, the Christians should
> > be
> > > appealing to.
>
> > That's correct, the Pakistani govt should be protecting these
> > Christians. But there's low-level civil war in northwestern Pakistan,
> > and the central govt's ability to protect them is very doubtful.
>
> So every area in the world that is under threat of civil war where the
> governments ability to protect the population from goons of various kinds
> have a "persecuted" population?
>
> According to your logic that is the case.

That's not MY logic. There is persecution when (to use the dictionary
definition) there is oppression or harassment with ill-treatment,
especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or
beliefs. I think that's clearly the case here. The Pakistani govt
should be protecting these Xians *because* they are being persecuted.
Unfortunately, the Pakistani govt can't easily do it.

It would be oppression because of religion or beliefs; ergo, it would
be persecution. Historically, persecution has often been legal, but
it's still persecution.

> > just
> > as the anti-Jew laws of 1930s Germany were persecution.
>
> Are you actually trying to claim that Sharia Law which requires that *all*
> infidels are required to pay a tax is the SAME as anti-semitic laws which
> *actively* discriminated against Jews only and treated Jews as sub-human and
> which resulted in the Holocaust and which amounted to the most malicious
> persecution of a people in recent history.???
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> Think about what you're saying here Timmy.

Mice and elephants are both mammals. The anti-Jew laws of the 1930's
and the Taliban threats to kill Pakistani Christians are both
persecution. I am serious, and I'm frankly surprised you're arguing
it.

> But it would
>
> > be at a reasonable level, would carry reasonable legal penalties for
> > non-compliance, and be "justified" by their holy book which
> > unfortunately requires this persecution.
>
> It places a tax on non-believers. This is discriminatory but it is not
> persecution.

This one is semantics. Discrimination meets the dictionary definition
of persecution, but I agree it's not on a par with threatening to kill
me and use my wife as a sex slave.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Oct 19, 10:13 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Timmy. May I also point out that the same demands were made of the Sunni
> Muslims.
>
> Are they being "persecuted" too?

Yes.

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

[hucktunes]

On Oct 19, 7:44 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> How would we know if huck was being "facetious"? I'm curious on this
> point.

I was joking when I said she should have been a defense attorney at
the Nuremberg trials. It was a playful way of commenting on her post
about the Christians being responsible for any violence visited upon
them by the Taliban. I certainly didn't think she would react with
such vehemence.

> > All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103-Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

How would we know if huck was being "facetious"? I'm curious on this
point.

That would be quite a challenge. I have no idea given the upside downness of Huck World.

It's reminds me of Alice In Wonderland.
 

[Trance Gemini]

Do you know that they aren't trying to?

And the term "persecution" is usually applied to a State or a group that actually holds power and specifically targets another group.

The Sunni Muslims received the same letter indicating that the Taliban are targeting *all* non believers and are not singling out Christians.

If Pakistan declared this *and* only applied it to the Christians they would could cry persecution legitimately.

This is not the case, therefore there is no persecution specific to Christians.

This is called Crying Wolf and it's something the Christians do a lot.

And it's precisely why I don't take these claims of persecution seriously when they come from theists.
 

It would be Discrimination not oppression  or persecution.
 

> > just
> > as the anti-Jew laws of 1930s Germany were persecution.
>
> Are you actually trying to claim that Sharia Law which requires that *all*
> infidels are required to pay a tax is the SAME as anti-semitic laws which
> *actively* discriminated against Jews only and treated Jews as sub-human and
> which resulted in the Holocaust and which amounted to the most malicious
> persecution of a people in recent history.???
>
> You can't be serious.
>
> Think about what you're saying here Timmy.

Mice and elephants are both mammals. The anti-Jew laws of the 1930's
and the Taliban threats to kill Pakistani Christians are both
persecution. I am serious, and I'm frankly surprised you're arguing
it.

No they're not. The Jews were targeted *because* they were Jews and they were not given any options. Once they were identified as Jews they were abused. Period.

The Christians are being given the option to convert and they are *not* being targeted because they are Christians.

They are being targeted because they are *not* Muslim as are other groups.
 
Why aren't you complaining about the Sunni Muslims who received exactly the same threats from the Taliban?

> But it would
>
> > be at a reasonable level, would carry reasonable legal penalties for
> > non-compliance, and be "justified" by their holy book which
> > unfortunately requires this persecution.
>
> It places a tax on non-believers. This is discriminatory but it is not
> persecution.

This one is semantics. Discrimination meets the dictionary definition
of persecution, but I agree it's not on a par with threatening to kill
me and use my wife as a sex slave.

No It doesn't. Not in the actual sense that it's used.

Persecution is actively targeting someone for abuse.

Discrimination is treating the out group differently from the in group.
 

> > As a mitigating factor, the Quran requires rich Muslims to support the
> > community in other ways and non-Muslims are of course exempt from that
> > requirement.
>
> > > > It's persecution.
>
> > > > No doubt the fact that they see the Christian west as their oppressor
> > > > makes them more vicious to local Christians. But it's still
> > > > persecution.
>
> > <snip for brevity>
>
> --

> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:13 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Timmy. May I also point out that the same demands were made of the Sunni
> Muslims.
>
> Are they being "persecuted" too?

Yes.

By your logic everyone is being persecuted everywhere there is a conflict then.

So, why are the Christians special?

What makes their persecution more important than the persecution of the Sunni Muslims?

[Trance Gemini]

Only in Huck World, would it be "funny" to imply someone is defending nazis.

Of course that makes sense given the fact that Looney Tunes thinks fascism came before religion and that racial pride isn't racist.

This is what I actually said,

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
to be persecuted?

I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious conflicts.

In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those people off.

AFAIC this is a problem that those religions will have to sort out amongst themselves and if they only solution they can come up with is killing each other then that's their problem and I have no interest in getting involved.

If this were to occur in a Secular state then it's up to the state to intervene, assuming that laws are being broken.

If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge a theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for their own actions and the consequences of those actions.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Oct 20, 7:27 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

You've probably been hearing about the Swat Valley in the news. That's
in Pakistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/09/pakistan-taliban-swat-valley

> And the term "persecution" is usually applied to a State or a group that
> actually holds power and specifically targets another group.

Like the Taliban in this part of Pakistan.

> The Sunni Muslims received the same letter indicating that the Taliban are
> targeting *all* non believers and are not singling out Christians.

Actually the Shiites received the letter, as the Taliban are Sunni.
The Taliban specifically singled out and targeted Christians and Sunni
- as usual. These are two of the three religious minorities that they
see as their greatest enemies, the 3rd being Jews due to the Palestine
occupation.

The Sunni/Shia thing has been front page news for 8 years. The fact
that I didn't like Bush doesn't mean I can't spot a persecuting,
terrorist organization when I see one.

> If Pakistan declared this *and* only applied it to the Christians they would
> could cry persecution legitimately.
>
> This is not the case, therefore there is no persecution specific to
> Christians.
>
> This is called Crying Wolf and it's something the Christians do a lot.
>
> And it's precisely why I don't take these claims of persecution seriously
> when they come from theists.

Well, please make an exception this time since they have a strong
case. The claim that 12 Christians were targeted and killed in the
last 4 months is absolutely believable.

I agree it would be much better if they were protesting the treatment
of Sunnis as well, but they are allowed to advocate for their group.

Which was terrible. But it's like a difference between mice and
elephants, which are still both mammals.

> The Christians are being given the option to convert and they are *not*
> being targeted because they are Christians.
>
> They are being targeted because they are *not* Muslim as are other groups.

They are still being persecuted for their religion. Were Ferdinand and
Isabella persecuting Jews, Muslims, both or neither when they ordered
them to convert to Christianity or leave Spain? Surely the only valid
answer is, Both.

> Why aren't you complaining about the Sunni Muslims who received exactly the
> same threats from the Taliban?

I do complain about the Sunni threats to Shiites. It's the primary
example of theist persecution in the news today.

> > > But it would
>
> > > > be at a reasonable level, would carry reasonable legal penalties for
> > > > non-compliance, and be "justified" by their holy book which
> > > > unfortunately requires this persecution.
>
> > > It places a tax on non-believers. This is discriminatory but it is not
> > > persecution.
>
> > This one is semantics. Discrimination meets the dictionary definition
> > of persecution, but I agree it's not on a par with threatening to kill
> > me and use my wife as a sex slave.
>
> No It doesn't. Not in the actual sense that it's used.
>
> Persecution is actively targeting someone for abuse.

The Taliban targets Christians.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Oct 20, 7:31 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 10:13 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Timmy. May I also point out that the same demands were made of the Sunni
> > > Muslims.
>
> > > Are they being "persecuted" too?
>
> > Yes.
>
> By your logic everyone is being persecuted everywhere there is a conflict
> then.

Doesn't follow. These two related situations are specific, and these
are persecutions.

> So, why are the Christians special?
>
> What makes their persecution more important than the persecution of the
> Sunni Muslims?

In Pakistan the Shiite persecution is probably more important, but the
Christian persecution is still important.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 20, 7:27 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

> And the term "persecution" is usually applied to a State or a group that
> actually holds power and specifically targets another group.

Like the Taliban in this part of Pakistan.

They have no state power.

They're bullying the entire population that is *not* Taliban and not specifically targeting Christians.

That's not persecution
 

> The Sunni Muslims received the same letter indicating that the Taliban are
> targeting *all* non believers and are not singling out Christians.

Actually the Shiites received the letter, as the Taliban are Sunni.

Okay. Thanks for the correction.
 

The Taliban specifically singled out and targeted Christians and Sunni
- as usual. These are two of the three religious minorities that they
see as their greatest enemies, the 3rd being Jews due to the Palestine
occupation.

You can't call it "singling" out when they are targeting anyone who isn't Taliban and that's *why* it's not persecution.
 

The Sunni/Shia thing has been front page news for 8 years.  The fact
that I didn't like Bush doesn't mean I can't spot a persecuting,
terrorist organization when I see one.

Your definition is so vague and wide ranging that it would literally apply to any scenario where there is a civil war or conflict.

That is not how the term is used in reality.
 

> If Pakistan declared this *and* only applied it to the Christians they would
> could cry persecution legitimately.
>
> This is not the case, therefore there is no persecution specific to
> Christians.
>
> This is called Crying Wolf and it's something the Christians do a lot.
>
> And it's precisely why I don't take these claims of persecution seriously
> when they come from theists.

Well, please make an exception this time since they have a strong
case. The claim that 12 Christians were targeted and killed in the
last 4 months is absolutely believable.

And thousands upon thousands of Christian women and children are being tortured, abused, and *brutally* murdered (set on fire, acid thrown on their faces, beatings, etc.) in Africa by *fellow* Christians who are claiming that they are witches based on their delusional doctrinal beliefs.

Terrible things happen in this world.

It doesn't mean that they all amount to Persecution.

The fact that Africans are being targeted as witches is a form of Persecution, the target group being witches, whether the claims are true or not.

So, there's a stronger argument there for Christians Persecuting fellow Christians and those who are most vulnerable, women and children, than there is to these claims that they are being persecuted by the Taliban.

<snipped>
 

> > it.
>
> No they're not. The Jews were targeted *because* they were Jews and they
> were not given any options. Once they were identified as Jews they were
> abused. Period.

Which was terrible. But it's like a difference between mice and
elephants, which are still both mammals.

It's *fundamentally* different.

The Christians are being offered the option to convert and are not being mis-treated unless they don't.

The Jews were not offered any options.

That is a critical difference.
 

<snipped>

> No It doesn't. Not in the actual sense that it's used.
>
> Persecution is actively targeting someone for abuse.

The Taliban targets Christians.

The Taliban targets everyone who isn't Taliban.

<snipped>

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 19, 4:22 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 18, 3:57 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

>
> > > > > ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem
> > to

> > > > > > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for
> > Christians
> > > > > > to be persecuted?
>

> > > > > I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious
> > > > > conflicts.
>
> > > > > In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted"
> > because
> > > > > they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks
> > > > those
> > > > > people off.
>

> > > > Or to summarize - yes -you think it's okay that Christians are
> > > > persecuted, because they deserve it. That sounds entirely rational and
> > > > compassionate... After all - who cares about the genocide in Sudan -
> > > > they deserved it!   :/
>

> > > Is it okay for African women and children to be brutalized and murdered
> > by
> > > Christians for no other reason than their delusional superstitious
> > fantasies
> > > about demons and witches?
>
> > Of course not - and it's either ignorant or dishonest of you to imply

> > that those beliefs are causally connected to Christianity - witchcraft/

> > animism/etc have a long history in African cultures which was there
> > long before Christianity took hold - so this isn't a Christian
> > phenomenon, it's a holdover from pre-Christian societies.
>

> Tell the Christian Churches in Africa that.
>
> And tell the Christians groups that threatened the Secular Humanists who
> *are* trying to help those Christian Children and made *those* threats In
> The Name Of Jesus and God.
>
> The only dishonesty here is yours.

I beg to differ. In a brief search for information on this problem - I
was able to find numerous sources confirming my points about this
being a pre-Christian holdover that's been merged in an unholy union
with local churches, as well as *Christian organizations* in Nigeria
which are fighting the child witch problem (more below). Strangely, I
was unable to find any mention in the press of a secular humanist
group fighting this problem. It's hard for me to believe someone as
(apparently) passionate about this problem as you would be wholly
ignorant of those facts - and if that is the case, then surely you're
engagement on this issue is less than full, and less than pure in
motivation.

From the Telegraph:

"The devil's children are "identified" by powerful religious leaders
at extremist churches where Christianity and traditional beliefs have
combined to produce a deep-rooted belief in, and fear of,
witchcraft...."

And from a Nigerian who runs the CRARN shelter camp for affected
children:

"Christianity in the Niger Delta is seriously questionable, putting a
traditional religion together with Christian religion - and it makes
nonsense out of it,"

The majority of press coverage also mentions Gary Foxtrot's "Stepping
Stones," a UK charity for the affected Nigerian children that
supports the Christian CRARN camp mentioned below - and whose founder
said:

"Any Christian would look at the situation that is going on here and
just be absolutely outraged that they were using the teachings of
Jesus Christ to exploit and abuse innocent children"

source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html

And if you browse to the CRARN's website you'll find a lengthy
refutation, from a Christian quoting the Bible, of witch-children
beliefs under the 'False Prophets' link.

source:
http://crarn.tripod.com/id18.html

Clearly Christians do condemn this behavior, actively campaign against
it - and the overwhelming majority of Christians denounce this
practice as blasphemy, and 'un-Christian.' The belief in child witches
is a holdover from traditional religion - improperly infused with
Christianity - not legitimate or recognized Christian beliefs. Your
comments to the contrary are, at best, woefully inaccurate.

> This is an Inconvenient Truth that Christians continue to ignore both on
> this site and off.
>
> Your hypocrisy is glaring.

>
> > But why are you changing the subject?
>
> What are you telling me - you'll
>
> > only condemn an action if it allows you to look down disdainfully on
> > Christians? Like most groups, Christians are also persecuted - and
> > like Ranjit's example you responded to - they are persecuted for
> > merely being Christian in a non-Christian society. Do you condemn this
> > -or not?
>

> Your Straw men and insults have no bearing on the opinion that I expressed
> clearly.
>
> Your willful ignorance when it comes to your incapability of reading my
> opinion is your problem not mine.

Nonsense. I've asked you twice to condemn the violent persecution of
Christians, and both times you've refused to respond. I'm ignorant of
your position on this only because you refuse to make it clear - but
your silence says it all.

I've also raised numerous points contesting your claims that
Christians don't care, that this is a Christian practice, etc..which
you've wholly ignored.
Surely the plight of these children isn't aided by spreading hateful
and ideologically motivated misinformation on this topic - I'd
encourage you to reconsider your mistaken claims.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > If not, which Christian organizations are actively helping those children
> > > and telling those Christians that this is wrong?
>
> > > Secular Humanist organizations are there doing that.
>
> > Great. Good for you.
>
> > > And the price they are paying is that they are being targeted with
> > threats
> > > and abuse.
>
> > > Do you know how to spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?
>
> > Save your self-righteousness- above you condemn Christians for
> > proselytizing (which, btw, isn't a crime. If you don't like it, then
> > walk off. It doesn't justify violence..wtf) - while in other threads
> > you seem to revel in the running tally of 'Conversions: 0/
> > Deconversions: 1"  for the thread. That's hypocrisy.
>
> > As to your point, those are practices I obviously condemn, they're pre-
> > Christian holdovers, and I'm not making any death threats to your
> > humanist friends. So where exactly is my hypocrisy?
>

> > > > > If this were to occur in a Secular state then it's up to the state to
> > > > > intervene, assuming that laws are being broken.
>
> > > > > If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to
> > challenge a
> > > > > theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > actions and the consequences of those actions.
>

> > > > > >http://www.aina.org/news/20091016174755.htm
>
> > > > > > Washington -- International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned
> > that
> > > > > > on October 6, members of the Taliban sent threatening letters in
> > > > > > Sargodha, Pakistan warning Christian leaders to convert to Islam or
> > > > > > face dire consequences.
>
> > > > > > A copy of the letter obtained by ICC warns Christians to convert to
> > > > > > Islam, pay Jizya tax (an Islamic tax imposed on religious
> > minorities)
> > > > > > or leave the country. If Christians refuse to accept the choices
> > given
> > > > > > to them, the letter explains that they "would be killed, their
> > > > > > property and homes would be burnt to ashes and their women would be
> > > > > > treated as sex slaves. And they themselves would be responsible for
> > > > > > this."
>

[Trance Gemini]

And as usual Ma-choo! is too stupid to actually read the thread.

I have never claimed that there weren't any Christian organizations helping.

The question has been asked repeatedly and the point was being made that:

1. No Christians on this site have made any comment (up until your post) on whether there were or weren't.

Either they don't care enough to find out or they aren't any.

And the few that have "condemned" these acts have done so with a host of Straw Man rationalizations and No True Scotsman fallacies.

So Bug Off with your self-righteousness and learn to fucking tell the truth for a change.

[hucktunes]

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group
by another group. The most common forms are sexual persecution i.e.;
persecution of women, religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and
political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between
these terms.

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

> source:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeri...

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 19, 7:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 5:02 pm, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is it okay for African women and children to be brutalized and murdered by
> > > Christians for no other reason than their delusional superstitious fantasies
> > > about demons and witches?
>
> > Of course not - and it's either ignorant or dishonest of you to imply
> > that those beliefs are causally connected to Christianity -
>
> Is the belief that witches must be killed not connected to the Bible?
> Is it a holdover from pre-Christian societies? Before Christianity
> came to Nigeria, did Nigerians kill witches? Did Nigerians kill their
> children after accusing them of witchcraft?

I'm no expert on the topic - but from what I've seen, it seems this
problem is complex enough to prevent an easy and clear line of
separation. Beliefs in witchcraft and the attribution of all problems
to witchcraft is a feature common to traditional African religion,
however afaik traditionally the accused witches were not exclusively
children. So Nigerians, and many African societies - did persecute
witches long before Christianity ever gained a foothold there.

But in the last few decades, the persecution of alleged child witches
has skyrocketed in Nigeria, due primarily to the profiteering of a few
prominent evangelical preachers- who encourage this belief and then
charge for exorcisms, etc. So some Christian churches in Nigeria do
clearly bear the bulk of blame for the problem today - but as people
familiar with Christianity can easily attest - those churches are not
enacting traditional Christian beliefs or practice - they've fused the
negative aspects of traditional, pre-Christian witchcraft belief with
modern Christianity. And other Christian Nigerians in the area
recognize that, and campaign against these practices as a result of
'false prophets.' A local Nigerian campaigning against these problems
describes this unholy union best:

"Christianity in the Niger Delta is seriously questionable, putting a
traditional religion together with Christian religion - and it makes

nonsense out of it," he says.

source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/3407882/Child-witches-of-Nigeria-seek-refuge.html

[hucktunes]

On Oct 20, 4:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only in Huck World, would it be "funny" to imply someone is defending nazis.

The Nazis were fascists and so is the Taliban. It was a funny way to
criticize your defense of the Taliban.

> Of course that makes sense given the fact that Looney Tunes thinks fascism
> came before religion and that racial pride isn't racist.

I do think that the desire for the power to rule lies at the heart of
the founding of religion. As for racial pride, http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Racial_pride.

On Oct 20, 4:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only in Huck World, would it be "funny" to imply someone is defending nazis.
>
> Of course that makes sense given the fact that Looney Tunes thinks fascism
> came before religion and that racial pride isn't racist.
>
> This is what I actually said,
>

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[Trance Gemini]

And Huck continues to derail this thread by fabricating lies.

Bug Off. Huck. I have no desire to play your nasty little games.

Go find someone else to abuse with your pathetic lies.

I'm not interesting in your ugly little abuse fests.

This is what I actually said.

[hucktunes]

On Oct 20, 9:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And Huck continues to derail this thread by fabricating lies.
>
> Bug Off. Huck. I have no desire to play your nasty little games.

Then you should have kept your nasty little lies to yourself. And talk
about derailing threads, why steer the discussion to witches in Africa
when the discussion is about Christians in Pakistan?

On Oct 20, 9:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And Huck continues to derail this thread by fabricating lies.
>
> Bug Off. Huck. I have no desire to play your nasty little games.
>
> Go find someone else to abuse with your pathetic lies.
>
> I'm not interesting in your ugly little abuse fests.
>
> This is what I actually said.
>

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Oct 20, 12:07 pm, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 7:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 5:02 pm, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 19, 12:05 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Is it okay for African women and children to be brutalized and murdered by
> > > > Christians for no other reason than their delusional superstitious fantasies
> > > > about demons and witches?
>
> > > Of course not - and it's either ignorant or dishonest of you to imply
> > > that those beliefs are causally connected to Christianity -
>
> > Is the belief that witches must be killed not connected to the Bible?
> > Is it a holdover from pre-Christian societies? Before Christianity
> > came to Nigeria, did Nigerians kill witches? Did Nigerians kill their
> > children after accusing them of witchcraft?
>
> I'm no expert on the topic - but from what I've seen, it seems this
> problem is complex enough to prevent an easy and clear line of
> separation. Beliefs in witchcraft and the attribution of all problems
> to witchcraft is a feature common to traditional African religion,
> however afaik traditionally the accused witches were not exclusively
> children. So Nigerians, and many African societies - did persecute
> witches long before Christianity ever gained a foothold there.

Belief in witchcraft was widespread. AFAIK, however, those identified
as "witches" were self-professed "witch doctors", not people whom
third parties identified as witches. Also, AFAIK, "witch doctors" were
held in reverence/ fear and were not persecuted. Do you have any
references that indicate otherwise?

> But in the last few decades, the persecution of alleged child witches
> has skyrocketed in Nigeria, due primarily to the profiteering of a few
> prominent evangelical preachers- who encourage this belief and then
> charge for exorcisms, etc. So some Christian churches in Nigeria do
> clearly bear the bulk of blame for the problem today - but as people
> familiar with Christianity can easily attest - those churches are not
> enacting traditional Christian beliefs or practice - they've fused the
> negative aspects of traditional, pre-Christian witchcraft belief  with
> modern Christianity. And other Christian Nigerians in the area
> recognize that, and campaign against these practices as a result of
> 'false prophets.' A local Nigerian campaigning against these problems
> describes this unholy union best:
>
> "Christianity in the Niger Delta is seriously questionable, putting a
> traditional religion together with Christian religion - and it makes
> nonsense out of it," he says.

Is he correct that identifying innocent bystanders as witches comes
from traditional religion? Is he correct that an imperative to murder
witches comes from traditional religion?

> source:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeri...

[Trance Gemini]

And Huck continues to derail this thread by fabricating lies.

Bug Off. Huck. I have no desire to play your nasty little games.

Go find someone else to abuse with your pathetic lies.

I'm not interesting in your ugly little abuse fests.

This is what I actually said.

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 20, 10:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And as usual Ma-choo! is too stupid to actually read the thread.

And as usual you have a post that ignores all the substantive points
made - and responds only with personal attacks, and a whiny reluctance
to acknowledge the facts presented.

Do you condemn Christian persecution or not?

Do you grant that Christians are, in fact, campaigning against this
problem - or not?

Do you acknowledge, as stated by the Telegraph, and local Nigerians,
that this practice is a pre-Christian holdover?

For once, do me a favor and actually respond to the points raised -
surely you can save your personal attacks for the next post?

>
> I have never claimed that there weren't any Christian organizations helping.

No- you only implied it, and then called me a hypocrite based on that
obvious, albeit unstated, belief that only secularists, wiccans, etc
were fighting this problem - not Christians. And you were wrong.

>
> The question has been asked repeatedly and the point was being made that:
>
> 1. No Christians on this site have made any comment (up until your post) on
> whether there were or weren't.

I doubt that. In any case, it's done now - so perhaps you can stop
implying Christians are unconcerned with this problem.

>
> Either they don't care enough to find out or they aren't any.

And apparently neither did you.

> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeri...

[Jayhawks Dad]

On Oct 20, 11:38 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

Withcraft may not have come from traditional religion.

It seems to have existed from ancient times especially during the
heydays of the Babylonian empire as extant records show. The recently
dugged up "Code of Hammurabi," which was written around 2000 BC, says:

"If a man has laid a charge of witchcraft and has not justified it, he
upon whom the witchcraft is laid shall go to the holy river; he shall
plunge into the holy river and if the holy river overcome him, he who
accused him shall take to himself his house."

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Ma-choo! <thor...@aol.com> wrote:

On Oct 20, 10:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And as usual Ma-choo! is too stupid to actually read the thread.

And Ma-choo! is too stupid to get my repeated statements that I will not debate with this abusive piece of shit.

Go find someone who will put with your lies and misrepresentations.

I'm not interested.
 

[Trance Gemini]

The proper name for what has been termed "witchcraft" is Wicca and it's a Pagan belief system which worships natural gods like the Sun and engaged in early medicine with herbs etc.

All this stuff about it being Satanic, etc. is based on Biblical doctrine.

In the case of the African women and children, superstition is being used to claim that these children (mostly) and women are the cause of family illnesses or hard times.

Once someone claims their a "witch" they are subjected to extreme physical abuse and torture purportedly to eliminate demons.

All of this is being done in the name of God and Jesus.

The Secular Humanist Organization of Nigeria has tried to intervene and help the victims and as a result has been threatened as well.

I've posted links early in this thread. You should be able to find them easily somewhere in Posts 1 to 25.

This is the problem.
 

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 20, 11:38 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

Addressed below.

>
>
>
> > But in the last few decades, the persecution of alleged child witches
> > has skyrocketed in Nigeria, due primarily to the profiteering of a few
> > prominent evangelical preachers- who encourage this belief and then
> > charge for exorcisms, etc. So some Christian churches in Nigeria do
> > clearly bear the bulk of blame for the problem today - but as people
> > familiar with Christianity can easily attest - those churches are not
> > enacting traditional Christian beliefs or practice - they've fused the
> > negative aspects of traditional, pre-Christian witchcraft belief  with
> > modern Christianity. And other Christian Nigerians in the area
> > recognize that, and campaign against these practices as a result of
> > 'false prophets.' A local Nigerian campaigning against these problems
> > describes this unholy union best:
>
> > "Christianity in the Niger Delta is seriously questionable, putting a
> > traditional religion together with Christian religion - and it makes
> > nonsense out of it," he says.
>
> Is he correct that identifying innocent bystanders as witches comes
> from traditional religion? Is he correct that an imperative to murder
> witches comes from traditional religion?

"Witch doctors" is a Western term applied to traditional healers -
afaik this is not the term used by African societies, and if so - I'd
guess it's used only due to Western influence.

The concept of the witch in traditional African society is markedly
different from these native healers - from Benjamin C Ray's _African
Religions_ :

"The sociological features of the witch in African societies are those
of an antisocial person, someone who is morose, disagreeable,
mendacious, envious, shifty-eyed, and staring. Almost every large
family knows or suspects that it harbors such a person, and people
always know or suspect someone in their village or neighborhood. The
witch and the sorcerer are common figures in the African cultural
landscape, as prominent as the priest and the diviner. **Virtually no
one - Christian, Muslim, or traditionalist, literate or nonliterate -
doubts the reality and power of witchcraft and sorcery, so powerful is
its presence in contemporary life.**" [emphasis added] p. 106.

The response to alleged witchcraft varies by society - with some
allowing alleged witches to live as social outcasts within the
society's confines, some requiring "cleansings" to be done on the
witch (usually not harmful), and others urging death. A citation for
the practice of murdering witches is below..

"The Manianga regard witchcraft as a potential for everyone, a part of
human nature that can go astray. The same power..may also be used for
good. Those who use it to protect the community are respected; those
who use it to cause harm...are feared and hated. If identified, they
are forced to confess and, in the past, were killed by the community.
" Benjamin Ray's _African Religions_ p.108

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

Thanks for the information!

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 20, 12:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 10:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And as usual Ma-choo! is too stupid to actually read the thread.
>
> And Ma-choo! is too stupid to get my repeated statements that I will not
> debate with this abusive piece of shit.
>
> Go find someone who will put with your lies and misrepresentations.
>
> I'm not interested.

lol. You were more than willing to debate before - until I posted the
facts for everyone to see -and tried to hold your feet to the fire.
Can't say I'm surprised by your behavior here - "bravely running
away" as Monty Python would say.. but I do wish you had more to offer
here.

At the very least - it'd be decent of you to stop acting as if
secularists are the only people fighting against this problem - since
the primary child shelter in the area is, in fact, run by Christians.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jayhawks Dad]

I think it's based on the ignorance of people that certain withcraft
are not bad and not Satanic. I was trying to find a Bible verse saying
it's satanic, but I couldn't find one, except that sorcerers,
magicians, witchcraft that causes some harm are to be condemned.

> In the case of the African women and children, superstition is being used to
> claim that these children (mostly) and women are the cause of family
> illnesses or hard times.
>
> Once someone claims their a "witch" they are subjected to extreme physical
> abuse and torture purportedly to eliminate demons.
>
> All of this is being done in the name of God and Jesus.
>
> The Secular Humanist Organization of Nigeria has tried to intervene and help
> the victims and as a result has been threatened as well.
>
> I've posted links early in this thread. You should be able to find them
> easily somewhere in Posts 1 to 25.
>
> This is the problem.

Ignorance was the problem and it existed during the European
Inquisition. I'm glad that persecution is now almost nil, except fot
the ones you mentioned above.

Here's from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"At the end of the seventeenth century the persecution almost
everywhere began to slacken, and early in the eighteenth it
practically ceased. Torture was abolished in Prussia in 1754, in
Bavaria in 1807, in Hanover in 1822. The last trial for witchcraft in
Germany was in 1749 at Würzburg, but in Switzerland a girl was
executed for this offence in the Protestant Canton of Glarus in 1783.
There seems to be no evidence to support the allegation sometimes made
that women suspected of witchcraft were formally tried and put to
death in Mexico late in the nineteenth century" -- Stimmen aus Maria-
Laach, XXXII, 1887, p. 378

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Ma-choo! <thor...@aol.com> wrote:

On Oct 20, 12:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 10:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And as usual Ma-choo! is too stupid to actually read the thread.
>
> And Ma-choo! is too stupid to get my repeated statements that I will not
> debate with this abusive piece of shit.
>
> Go find someone who will put with your lies and misrepresentations.
>
> I'm not interested.

lol. You were more than willing to debate before -  until I posted the
facts for everyone to see -and tried to hold your feet to the fire.
Can't say I'm surprised by your behavior here -  "bravely running
away" as Monty Python would say.. but I do wish you had more to offer
here.

At the very least - it'd be decent of you to stop acting as if
secularists are the only people fighting against this problem - since
the primary child shelter in the area is, in fact, run by Christians.

I wasn't debating with you but of course you're too stupid to get that too aren't you?

I was telling you off.

My experience with you and your idea of "debate" is that you lie constantly and misrepresent constantly.

Unlike you I don't consider that "debate".

 

[Timothy 1:4a]

I think you snipped an important comparison. I have always said that
Ferdinand and Isalbella persecuted their Jews and Muslims, and I even
point to it as an extreme and well-known case. Let's compare:

1/ Both F&I and the Taliban are in a polically unstable situation. The
Taliban are using guerrilla warfare to try to wrest control of rural
areas from the secular Pakistani govt; F&I had just conquered an area
which had been Muslim-ruled for over 750 years, with large Muslim,
Jewish and Xian populations crossing all economic classes.
2/ Both are intolerant of all other religions, as F&I would
dramatically prove in the Americas in the coming decades.
3/ Both targeted specific religious groups whom they saw as their
biggest threats. The Taliban letters were not published "to whom it
may concern." They were sent to Xian and Shiite religious leaders.

These mammals are like country mouse and city mouse. They are
Tweedledum and Twedledee. Either I absolve F&I or I blame the Taliban.
To me it's totally clear that both are persecuting other religions.

Re the witches: you know this is off topic, Trance. Does anyone on
this group, even Brock or JFG, deny that Christians persecute? You
know that I don't! The only competition that comes to mind for Worst
Offender is the Communist states.

Ranjit asked a straightforward question about a different situation,
which is also reprehensible. Even in the unlikely event that some of
these Pakistani XIans came straight from a Nigerian witch hunt with
children's blood on their hands, that's not why the Taliban is
intimidating and killing them.

On Oct 20, 11:18 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

Do you believe in Demons and Witches and Witchcraft?

Anyway, you're right when you say that the Bible (to my knowledge) doesn't say it.

Christians say it. It's been said many times on this site and is usually used to describe a person some Christian doesn't like.
 
Atheists here have been accused of being demons and witches because some Christian was upset by some disagreement.

Unfortunately, I suspect the same is occurring in Africa.

Once the mind set is there it becomes open season.

The Bible does say: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

And this is apparently is what is being used in the name of God and Jesus to justify  torture, abuse and murder "witches".

The local culture is irrelevant in these circumstances.

It's only relevance is in the fact that tribal beliefs are making it much easier to incite these witch hunts.

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 20, 1:22 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 12:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Ma-choo! <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 20, 10:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > And as usual Ma-choo! is too stupid to actually read the thread.
>
> > > And Ma-choo! is too stupid to get my repeated statements that I will not
> > > debate with this abusive piece of shit.
>
> > > Go find someone who will put with your lies and misrepresentations.
>
> > > I'm not interested.
>
> > lol. You were more than willing to debate before -  until I posted the
> > facts for everyone to see -and tried to hold your feet to the fire.
> > Can't say I'm surprised by your behavior here -  "bravely running
> > away" as Monty Python would say.. but I do wish you had more to offer
> > here.
>
> > At the very least - it'd be decent of you to stop acting as if
> > secularists are the only people fighting against this problem - since
> > the primary child shelter in the area is, in fact, run by Christians.
>
> I wasn't debating with you but of course you're too stupid to get that too
> aren't you?
>
> I was telling you off.
>
> My experience with you and your idea of "debate" is that you lie constantly
> and misrepresent constantly.
>
> Unlike you I don't consider that "debate".

Bullshit. Whatever you want to call it - you have posts here filled
with inaccuracies, false insinuations, and personal attacks - I
responded with citations, links, and evidence - and you've got nothing
but contempt to offer. You're right that this isn't debate - but the
fault is your own. Drama, religious bigotry, and personal vendettas
seem to be your currency - I've yet to see you involved in a
discussion that didn't turn nasty. I hope you decide to change that
soon.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think you snipped an important comparison.  I have always said that
Ferdinand and Isalbella persecuted their Jews and Muslims, and I even
point to it as an extreme and well-known case.

I don't agree that it's a good analogy Tim. Simply because Ferdinand was King and had state power.

You're comparing a situation where the state *was* used to oppress and persecute people in other religions to a situation where there is No Rule of Law, there is a Civil War and there are Goons running around threatening people with things they have no authority to impose.

How is that remotely the same? Even if you consider the fact that Ferdinand was conquering other countries. He conquered them and they were under his state control.
 

Let's compare:

1/ Both F&I and the Taliban are in a polically unstable situation. The
Taliban are using guerrilla warfare to try to wrest control of rural
areas from the secular Pakistani govt; F&I had just conquered an area
which had been Muslim-ruled for over 750 years, with large Muslim,
Jewish and Xian populations crossing all economic classes.
2/ Both are intolerant of all other religions, as F&I would
dramatically prove in the Americas in the coming decades.
3/ Both targeted specific religious groups whom they saw as their
biggest threats. The Taliban letters were not published "to whom it
may concern."  They were sent to Xian and Shiite religious leaders.

These mammals are like country mouse and city mouse. They are
Tweedledum and Twedledee. Either I absolve F&I or I blame the Taliban.
To me it's totally clear that both are persecuting other religions.

Re the witches: you know this is off topic, Trance. Does anyone on
this group, even Brock or JFG, deny that Christians persecute?  You
know that I don't!  The only competition that comes to mind for Worst
Offender is the Communist states.

I'm simply making the point that Christians only seem to care about and define themselves as the targets of "persecution" when it suits them.
 

Ranjit asked a straightforward question about a different situation,
which is also reprehensible.  Even in the unlikely event that some of
these Pakistani XIans came straight from a Nigerian witch hunt with
children's blood on their hands, that's not why the Taliban is
intimidating and killing them.

The Taliban is intimidating and killing those who are not Taliban.

They are no singling Christians out for special abuse.

Nor are they doing it because they're Christian.

They're doing it because they're *NOT* Taliban.

You can ignore that critical difference as much as you want Tim but it doesn't make it not true.
 

[Jayhawks Dad]

On Oct 20, 1:30 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jayhawks Dad <
>
>
>
>
>

Yes.

> Anyway, you're right when you say that the Bible (to my knowledge) doesn't
> say it.
>
> Christians say it. It's been said many times on this site and is usually
> used to describe a person some Christian doesn't like.
>
> Atheists here have been accused of being demons and witches because some
> Christian was upset by some disagreement.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect the same is occurring in Africa.
>
> Once the mind set is there it becomes open season.
>
> The Bible does say: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Yes, in the Old Testament. The laws of the New Testmanent are the ones
binding for Christians.

> And this is apparently is what is being used in the name of God and Jesus to
> justify  torture, abuse and murder "witches".

I'd say ignorance is the cause. A Christian cannot justify torture and
murder in the name of God and Jesus.

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Get A CLUE. Ma-choo!

I don't want to engage you in a debate.

I have an intense dislike for your disingenuous and dishonest approach.

Now. Leave Me Alone And Find Someone Else Who Is Willing To Put Up With Your Incessant Lies.

Other than the fact that Huck is an atheist and you are a theist there is essentially NO Difference between the two of you.

You both take everything personally and get your noses out of joint if anyone corners you in an argument that you can't defend.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jayhawks Dad <jayhawksda...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 20, 1:30 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Jayhawks Dad <
>

> jayhawksdadandmom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 12:50 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Jayhawks Dad <

<snipped>
 

>
> > > All this stuff about it being Satanic, etc. is based on Biblical
> > doctrine.
>
> > I think it's based on the ignorance of people that certain withcraft
> > are not bad and not Satanic. I was trying to find a Bible verse saying
> > it's satanic, but I couldn't find one, except that sorcerers,
> > magicians, witchcraft that causes some harm are to be condemned.
>
> Do you believe in Demons and Witches and Witchcraft?

Yes.

Seriously? <chuckle>

Okay, have you seen one?

How do you justify such a belief in the 21st century?

I mean, it's funny, except for the fact that people are actually being killed because of this Christian belief.
 

> Anyway, you're right when you say that the Bible (to my knowledge) doesn't
> say it.
>
> Christians say it. It's been said many times on this site and is usually
> used to describe a person some Christian doesn't like.
>
> Atheists here have been accused of being demons and witches because some
> Christian was upset by some disagreement.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect the same is occurring in Africa.
>
> Once the mind set is there it becomes open season.
>
> The Bible does say: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Yes, in the Old Testament. The laws of the New Testmanent are the ones
binding for Christians.

I see. So what does "condemn" mean to you. I believe that's what you said is supposed to happen.

And how do you determine if someone is a witch or demon and what do you do about it?
 

> And this is apparently is what is being used in the name of God and Jesus to
> justify  torture, abuse and murder "witches".

I'd say ignorance is the cause. A Christian cannot justify torture and
murder in the name of God and Jesus.

They can and they are.

Are you saying they shouldn't? If so, why not?

<snipped>

[hucktunes]

On Oct 20, 10:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The proper name for what has been termed "witchcraft" is Wicca and it's a
> Pagan belief system which worships natural gods like the Sun and engaged in
> early medicine with herbs etc.

Ha ha ha, man that's dumb. Wicca (pronounced [ˈwɪkə]) is a neopagan,
nature-based religion. It was popularized in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a
retired British civil servant, who at the time called it a "Witch
cult" and "Witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica".

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

On Oct 20, 10:50 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[hucktunes]

On Oct 20, 11:47 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Other than the fact that Huck is an atheist and you are a theist there is
> essentially NO Difference between the two of you.
>
> You both take everything personally and get your noses out of joint if
> anyone corners you in an argument that you can't defend.

You're the one with the disjointed schnoz. When you're presented with
facts you call them lies and call an end to the debate.

>

On Oct 20, 11:47 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Get A CLUE. Ma-choo!
>
> I don't want to engage you in a debate.
>
> I have an intense dislike for your disingenuous and dishonest approach.
>
> Now. Leave Me Alone And Find Someone Else Who Is Willing To Put Up With Your
> Incessant Lies.
>
> Other than the fact that Huck is an atheist and you are a theist there is
> essentially NO Difference between the two of you.
>
> You both take everything personally and get your noses out of joint if
> anyone corners you in an argument that you can't defend.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[hucktunes]

And she calls truth lies, opponents liars, racial pride racist and
reason disingenuous with the same convection and certitude as she does
about Wicca being the proper name for witchcraft. In the future, boys
and girls, when the insults fly, consider the source.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 20, 3:58 pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And she calls truth lies, opponents liars, racial pride racist and
> reason disingenuous with the same convection and certitude as she does
> about Wicca being the proper name for witchcraft. In the future, boys
> and girls, when the insults fly, consider the source.

I thought about making a comment on her 'witchcraft is wicca' remark-
but at some point, you've got to just give up. Some people don't want
facts that contradict their beliefs - no matter how you try and
present them. The most constructive conversation I've ever had with
Trance ended with her acknowledging I was correct on a particular
point, and then leaving the debate with a promised response at a later
time, which was never provided - at this point- even that sounds
preferable to this 'bravely running away' routine that's become
Trance's trademark.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dogooder]

On Oct 20, 1:47�pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Get A CLUE. Ma-choo!
>
> I don't want to engage you in a debate.
>
> I have an intense dislike for your disingenuous and dishonest approach.
>
> Now. Leave Me Alone And Find Someone Else Who Is Willing To Put Up With Your
> Incessant Lies.
>
> Other than the fact that Huck is an atheist and you are a theist there is
> essentially NO Difference between the two of you.

Get a CLUE Trance, Huck and Ma-choo are way smarter than you are. You
cannot hold your own and take the truth. Pity you.

> ...
>
> read more �- Hide quoted text -

[Dogooder]

On Oct 20, 3:23�pm, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 11:47 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Other than the fact that Huck is an atheist and you are a theist there is
> > essentially NO Difference between the two of you.
>
> > You both take everything personally and get your noses out of joint if
> > anyone corners you in an argument that you can't defend.
>
> You're the one with the disjointed schnoz. When you're presented with
> facts you call them lies and call an end to the debate.

Yes, she cannot take the truth and reverse things up. Pity that girl.

[Dev]

He didn't answer my question as to how we're supposed to know whether
he's being "facetious huck" or huck just being a moron. It's hard for
a self-parody to do satire.

On Oct 20, 5:42 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only in Huck World, would it be "funny" to imply someone is defending nazis.
>
> Of course that makes sense given the fact that Looney Tunes thinks fascism
> came before religion and that racial pride isn't racist.
>
> This is what I actually said,

>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
>
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
> > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
> > to be persecuted?
>
> I don't believe that it's moral or ethical to take sides in religious
> conflicts.
>
> In most cases, the "persecuted" Christians are being "persecuted" because
> they insist on proselytizing people from other religions and it ticks those
> people off.
>

> AFAIC this is a problem that those religions will have to sort out amongst
> themselves and if they only solution they can come up with is killing each
> other then that's their problem and I have no interest in getting involved.
>

> If this were to occur in a Secular state then it's up to the state to
> intervene, assuming that laws are being broken.
>

> If this were to occur in a Theocracy then those who chose to challenge a
> theocracy from a different religion are ultimately responsible for their own
> actions and the consequences of those actions.
>

[Dev]

It's a load of crap.

I think you did open up a little room for misinterpretation in your
post, really, but I'm the last person who could fault you for it. We
overestimate them because our opinions of them are higher than what
they deserve, and it is our fault that we try to convince ourselves
that theists are better than what they are. You have a long record of
denouncing violence against the religious, particularly children, who
we both agree can't be held responsible for the consequences of
childish beliefs in the same way adults should be--particularly since
the children often died because adults shamefully indoctrinated them
into faith.

Fuckers like Sneezy want to shit on you for not denouncing persecution
of Christians when you have shown the only _human_ response to a child
being burnt as a witch, or starved for not saying "Amen", while those
fuckers shit on the dead kids to try to exonerate faith? Fuck them.
They obviously don't care about other people. Not once do they stand
up and denounce the way their cohorts treat kids. It should just "go
without saying"--they should be exonerated for being cohorts. We
criticize the way theists treat their own and the dead are pissed on
by these fucks. They don't even care about their own. Reality is not
an issue to them. It's only the fucking fairy tales that matter.

[hucktunes]

On Oct 20, 8:04 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> He didn't answer my question as to how we're supposed to know whether
> he's being "facetious huck" or huck just being a moron. It's hard for
> a self-parody to do satire.

You didn't ask me any questions you disingenuous lying piece of shit.
You must really think people are stupid if you think you can fool them
with your half-baked deceptions, moron.

[hucktunes]

On Oct 20, 3:57 pm, "Ma-choo!" <thorea...@aol.com> wrote:

> I thought about making a comment on her 'witchcraft is wicca' remark-
> but at some point, you've got to just give up.

You are much kinder to her than I'm willing to be anymore. I used to
treat her with kid gloves but she's become too unpleasant to for me to
be concerned about showing kindness to.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

He didn't answer my question as to how we're supposed to know whether
he's being "facetious huck" or huck just being a moron. It's hard for
a self-parody to do satire.

When does Looney Tunes answer *any* questions?

Fabricating Straw Men, misrepresenting the opposition argument and slandering people who disagree him is all he appears to be capable of.

Since Ma-choo! aka Sneezy also uses the same strategy it doesn't surprise me that they've created this unholy atheist / theist alliance.

They claim to present their "case" but don't you dare make the mistake of demonstrating that they're wrong and asking them to debate it honestly.

And they only target the people that actually expose their specious claims.

Ma-choo! couldn't defend his position in the Religion / Mental Illness thread and that's why he's on this nasty little vendetta.

He started using dishonest strategies much like Huck did in the Is Racial Pride Racism thread.

And then when you call them on their dishonest strategies they get ugly and start lying.

Any time they've accused me of lying I've been able to prove that they're the liars.

They have yet to support any of their slanders about me.

I have nothing but contempt for people who behave like charlatans and will say so and will not debate them.

They know who they are and it's nothing short of a provocation and attempt to start a flame war when they respond to my posts with Gross Misrepresentations of what I've said.

It's really quite pathetic.

Don't they have anything better to do?

If they were here because they were genuinely interested in debate they would simply debate with people they like to debate with.

Instead they Bully and Harrass and try to Intimidate me.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:39 AM, hucktunes <bob....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:04 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> He didn't answer my question as to how we're supposed to know whether
> he's being "facetious huck" or huck just being a moron. It's hard for
> a self-parody to do satire.

You didn't ask me any questions you disingenuous lying piece of shit.

That would be you and yes he did.

When are you going to stop lying about people who disagree with you Huck?
 

You must really think people are stupid if you think you can fool them
with your half-baked deceptions, moron.

Projecting again?

 

[hucktunes]

On Oct 21, 4:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:39 AM, hucktunes <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 20, 8:04 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > He didn't answer my question as to how we're supposed to know whether
> > > he's being "facetious huck" or huck just being a moron. It's hard for
> > > a self-parody to do satire.
>
> > You didn't ask me any questions you disingenuous lying piece of shit.
>
> That would be you and yes he did.
>
> When are you going to stop lying about people who disagree with you Huck?

He asked you, not me. Show me where he asked me a question. He hasn't
addressed me in about a month. He asked you a question about me.

On Oct 21, 4:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[hucktunes]

Note that Dev says:

On Oct 20, 8:16 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>particularly children, who
> we both agree can't be held responsible for the consequences of
> childish beliefs in the same way adults should be--

What a load of crap. When I posted that I had exchanged derogatory
racial epitaphs as a child of eleven years with another child Dev
jumped on the incident like a fly on shit and insisted that I be
judged as if I were an adult that should have known the consequences.
The very fact that the reason I posted the incident in the first place
was to demonstrate that I had learned the consequences as a child
mattered not one bit to Dev, who used the incident as an excuse for
further insults. Dev lies when he says he and Trance "both agree" that
children "can't be held responsible for the consequences". Dev says
anything that is convenient with no regard for truth.

[Doris Ragland]

What are we talking about--Children when their children are corrected when need--or are you talking about being held responsible in Judgement when they become adults

[Dev]

On Oct 21, 5:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > He didn't answer my question as to how we're supposed to know whether
> > he's being "facetious huck" or huck just being a moron. It's hard for
> > a self-parody to do satire.
>
> When does Looney Tunes answer *any* questions?
>
> Fabricating Straw Men, misrepresenting the opposition argument and
> slandering people who disagree him is all he appears to be capable of.
>
> Since Ma-choo! aka Sneezy also uses the same strategy it doesn't surprise me
> that they've created this unholy atheist / theist alliance.

This is really how it goes. Atheism is just rejecting one form of
idiocy. The dumbass atheists tend to side with theists in the long run
because their idiocy creates a rift between them and us.

> They claim to present their "case" but don't you dare make the mistake of
> demonstrating that they're wrong and asking them to debate it honestly.
>
> And they only target the people that actually expose their specious claims.

Of course. But remember: in this context, strength in numbers can't
compete with better arguments in the same way it can in "real life".
We have better arguments, so we manage to dominate this group. The
domain of argumentation is where we win, and they bitch because the
standards have changed: in "real life", you and I being involved with
a proportional population of racists and theists would both be dead
when the discussion turns this heated. Since this is the Internet and
not "RL", we're still alive, so they're oh-so-persecuted.

> Ma-choo! couldn't defend his position in the Religion / Mental Illness
> thread and that's why he's on this nasty little vendetta.

Sneezy is a fucktarded piece of shit. The fact that he was too crazy
for thea sealed that whole envelope.

> He started using dishonest strategies much like Huck did in the Is Racial
> Pride Racism thread.
>
> And then when you call them on their dishonest strategies they get ugly and
> start lying.
>
> Any time they've accused me of lying I've been able to prove that they're
> the liars.
>
> They have yet to support any of their slanders about me.
>
> I have nothing but contempt for people who behave like charlatans and will
> say so and will not debate them.

I should say this now: in my worst excesses on this group, it is
because of this. What the fuck can we do? Characters like Drafterman
and Max have been factually dishonest simply because they refuse to
confront the issue of how, in the long run, we're supposed to deal
with people who threaten us in great quantity. I challenge people
because I actually give a shit. Anyone following foreign policy and
this group can find parallels between the arguments given by the
idiots here and the arguments given by the nuclear powers. I have a
sick sense of humor, but I take this shit seriously. Of course
confronting the actual situation isn't going to be fucking
comfortable.

> They know who they are and it's nothing short of a provocation and attempt
> to start a flame war when they respond to my posts with Gross
> Misrepresentations of what I've said.
>
> It's really quite pathetic.
>
> Don't they have anything better to do?
>
> If they were here because they were genuinely interested in debate they
> would simply debate with people they like to debate with.

Theists don't really debate. They have imaginary friends and yet deny
empirical facts. They're just fucking nuts.

> Instead they Bully and Harrass and try to Intimidate me.

Oh, cool off. If you ever need me to take a bullet for you, I'll try
to cross the border up and probably fail, but it's the thought that
counts. Or something. Fuck them. I'm actually supposed to respect
their stupidity and lies and not want to defend myself or anyone I
care about? Fuck anyone who doesn't fight against racism, religion or
any other form of harmful insanity because they are out of the game
and just plain don't count no more.

> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103- Hide quoted text -

[hucktunes]

On Oct 21, 5:34 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are we talking about--Children when their children are corrected when
> need--or are you talking about being held responsible in Judgement when they
> become adults

The only judgment day I know about is when you have to see a judge
about a traffic offense or some other crime. The childish behavior
that Dev and Trance demonstrate is the way they lie, curse, stomp
their feet and make threats when they feel they are right and
everybody else is wrong. Dev claims he is doing it to "fight against
racism" but the fact is Dev has demonstrated that he doesn't have a
clue what racism is. He uses his imagined "fight against racism" as an
excuse to behave like a spoiled brat that didn't get his way.

On Oct 21, 5:34 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are we talking about--Children when their children are corrected when
> need--or are you talking about being held responsible in Judgement when they
> become adults
>

[Trance Gemini]

Looney Tunes World where everything is backwards upside down and Looney Tunes is always right even when he proves he's wrong.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Oct 21, 5:21 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > He didn't answer my question as to how we're supposed to know whether
> > he's being "facetious huck" or huck just being a moron. It's hard for
> > a self-parody to do satire.
>
> When does Looney Tunes answer *any* questions?
>
> Fabricating Straw Men, misrepresenting the opposition argument and
> slandering people who disagree him is all he appears to be capable of.
>
> Since Ma-choo! aka Sneezy also uses the same strategy it doesn't surprise me
> that they've created this unholy atheist / theist alliance.

This is really how it goes. Atheism is just rejecting one form of
idiocy. The dumbass atheists tend to side with theists in the long run
because their idiocy creates a rift between them and us.

True. Being an idiot *isn't* limited to theism and you're right that this is the source of the "divide".
 

> They claim to present their "case" but don't you dare make the mistake of
> demonstrating that they're wrong and asking them to debate it honestly.
>
> And they only target the people that actually expose their specious claims.

Of course. But remember: in this context, strength in numbers can't
compete with better arguments in the same way it can in "real life".
We have better arguments, so we manage to dominate this group. The
domain of argumentation is where we win, and they bitch because the
standards have changed: in "real life", you and I being involved with
a proportional population of racists and theists would both be dead
when the discussion turns this heated.

Very true.
 

Since this is the Internet and not "RL", we're still alive, so they're oh-so-persecuted.

The irony of this is unbelievable.
 

> Ma-choo! couldn't defend his position in the Religion / Mental Illness
> thread and that's why he's on this nasty little vendetta.

Sneezy is a fucktarded piece of shit. The fact that he was too crazy
for thea sealed that whole envelope.

> He started using dishonest strategies much like Huck did in the Is Racial
> Pride Racism thread.
>
> And then when you call them on their dishonest strategies they get ugly and
> start lying.
>
> Any time they've accused me of lying I've been able to prove that they're
> the liars.

Update here. It's hilarious.

Huck is accusing me of lying while now copying entire posts as his "proof" and the posts themselves actually prove *he's* the liar.

Too funny.
 

>
> They have yet to support any of their slanders about me.
>
> I have nothing but contempt for people who behave like charlatans and will
> say so and will not debate them.

I should say this now: in my worst excesses on this group, it is
because of this. What the fuck can we do? Characters like Drafterman
and Max have been factually dishonest simply because they refuse to
confront the issue of how, in the long run, we're supposed to deal
with people who threaten us in great quantity.

I agree with what you said but as you already know I don't agree with your assessment of either Drafterman of Max.

I challenge people
because I actually give a shit. Anyone following foreign policy and
this group can find parallels between the arguments given by the
idiots here and the arguments given by the nuclear powers. I have a
sick sense of humor, but I take this shit seriously. Of course
confronting the actual situation isn't going to be fucking
comfortable.

Strategy can make a difference though and I don't use the same strategies as the Hucks and the Ma-choos of the world.

IMO having an honest but strategic approach and recognizing both the rights of the group and the rights of the individual are important.

The Hucks and Ma-choos of the world are bullies and goons when it comes to people who disagree with them and they don't recognize either the rights of the group or the individual. Only their right to be bullies and goons.
 

> They know who they are and it's nothing short of a provocation and attempt
> to start a flame war when they respond to my posts with Gross
> Misrepresentations of what I've said.
>
> It's really quite pathetic.
>
> Don't they have anything better to do?
>
> If they were here because they were genuinely interested in debate they
> would simply debate with people they like to debate with.

Theists don't really debate. They have imaginary friends and yet deny
empirical facts. They're just fucking nuts.

> Instead they Bully and Harrass and try to Intimidate me.

Oh, cool off.

Err No. (Just kidding Lol)
 

If you ever need me to take a bullet for you, I'll try
to cross the border up and probably fail, but it's the thought that
counts.

I love ya too :-) and ditto.
 

Or something. Fuck them. I'm actually supposed to respect
their stupidity and lies and not want to defend myself or anyone I
care about? Fuck anyone who doesn't fight against racism, religion or
any other form of harmful insanity because they are out of the game
and just plain don't count no more.

Strategy ... strategy ... strategy.

Love ya Dev. <HUGS>
 

[Ma-choo!]

On Oct 20, 10:16 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> It's a load of crap.
>
> I think you did open up a little room for misinterpretation in your
> post, really, but I'm the last person who could fault you for it. We

Because you're a tool, and your irrational hatred of all things
religion - aka bigotry - only allows you to criticize theists, and
circle jerk with atheists..take off the blinders already.

> overestimate them because our opinions of them are higher than what
> they deserve, and it is our fault that we try to convince ourselves
> that theists are better than what they are. You have a long record of
> denouncing violence against the religious, particularly children, who
> we both agree can't be held responsible for the consequences of
> childish beliefs in the same way adults should be--particularly since
> the children often died because adults shamefully indoctrinated them
> into faith.
>
> Fuckers like Sneezy want to shit on you for not denouncing persecution
> of Christians when you have shown the only _human_ response to a child
> being burnt as a witch, or starved for not saying "Amen", while those

Condemning the persecution of children has absolutely nothing to do
with someone's inability to condemn persecution of Christians
generally. If all you can do is condemn cruelty when it suits your
ideological motivations - then it's about politics, not compassion.

> fuckers shit on the dead kids to try to exonerate faith? Fuck them.
> They obviously don't care about other people. Not once do they stand
> up and denounce the way their cohorts treat kids. It should just "go

More of your irrational and incessant lies - the problem of 'witch
children' in Africa has been condemned by numerous theists including
myself - and these children are being cared for at the CRARN camp,
which posts bible quotes on it's website. All that information that's
already been posted - which you've apparently willfully ignored in
favor of hateful lies. "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

> ...
>
> read more »

[Doris Ragland]

One rotten apple in the bucket can ruin all the apples in the bucket
don't you think- But thank goodness it is only one bucket

On Oct 18, 1:49 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I just started yet another thread about Christians burning Christian
> children for "witchcraft". I have never seen a single Christian on
> this group bring attention to this epidemic. When I do it, they tend
> to dodge and marginalize the issue. Christians will defend
> Christianity, but they won't defend Christian children who are being
> murdered by fellow Christians. Anyone who really wants to protect
> Christian children wants to eliminate Christianity from the planet.
>
> On Oct 18, 10:41 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why is it that the protests against persecution of Christians seem to
> > come from other Christians? Do atheists think it's OK for Christians
> > to be persecuted?
>

> >http://www.aina.org/news/20091016174755.htm
>
> > Washington -- International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that
> > on October 6, members of the Taliban sent threatening letters in
> > Sargodha, Pakistan warning Christian leaders to convert to Islam or
> > face dire consequences.
>
> > A copy of the letter obtained by ICC warns Christians to convert to
> > Islam, pay Jizya tax (an Islamic tax imposed on religious minorities)
> > or leave the country. If Christians refuse to accept the choices given
> > to them, the letter explains that they "would be killed, their
> > property and homes would be burnt to ashes and their women would be
> > treated as sex slaves. And they themselves would be responsible for
> > this."- Hide quoted text -

[hucktunes]

On Oct 22, 3:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Since this is the Internet and not "RL", we're still alive, so they're
> > oh-so-persecuted.
>
> The irony of this is unbelievable.

Gibberish and irony lay at the heart of all your and Dev's arguments.
That is why your arguments are unbelievable.

On Oct 22, 3:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote: