Christian racism...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2013, 11:07 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(15-03-2013 10:55 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Let me make it more clear... "Christians" (I simply forgot the quotes)


Let the record reflect DeathsNotoriousAngel hates "Christians".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 11:22 PM
RE: Christian racism...
Hey, Death.

If I say "niggers are like X. Like 50 Cent," it doesn't actually matter that I identified Fiddy by name.

You said Christians. That all of them. That's the issue.

Quote:Is it perfectly acceptable for preacher Pat to get on TV in front of
thousands of constituents and spew his hateful nonsense? Is it perfectly
acceptable for the Pope to basically let priest get away with child
molestation? Is it okay for people to be influenced to commit horrible
inhumane crimes against others under the authority of scriptures?

Who suggested that?

That's called all or nothing thinking. I can call you out for intolerance and be against those things at the same time.

Incidentally, the newly retired Pope said that condoms can be morally justified back in 2010. So I don't know what you're on about.

Quote:Also you think it is weak for me to express my anger in a forum? Would
you rather I run up in a church with a rifle? Would that suffice your
definition of strength?

Don't be so dramatic.

Quote:I'm taking the non-violent approach to the situation, and you'll note
that not once did I not once advocate violence or persecution of the
faithful.

I never in a million years would have guessed you were preaching non-violence having read your OP.

And that's the problem.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 11:55 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2013 12:00 AM by DeathsNotoriousAngel.)
RE: Christian racism...
(15-03-2013 11:22 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Death.

If I say "niggers are like X. Like 50 Cent," it doesn't actually matter that I identified Fiddy by name.

You said Christians. That all of them. That's the issue.

I never in a million years would have guessed you were preaching non-violence having read your OP.

And that's the problem.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
1. If I had not mentioned specific groups, then your gripe might be valid, however I do recall you being disdained by people referring to the Hebrews as "The Jews" despite the fact that they themselves accept this term and actively use it, so its obvious you're biased in this fact.

2. If the word "Christian" has become a slur in some way then that's news to me... If I said "Dogs are good for protection. Like Dobermans and Rottweilers", that doesn't mean I'm talking about poodles now does it?

3. You should check your definition of "intolerance". Would you be tolerant of a crack dealer or child rapist? If not then you sir are being intolerant...

4. If the Pope is taking his information from "divine sources" then he's not allowed to change his mind, which simply makes him a hypocrite.

5. Then perhaps you should read what I wrote and not what you wanted to read...

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:48 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(15-03-2013 10:46 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  ~but I refuse to back down as long as people's personal beliefs are affecting policy. I'm not advocating the demise of religion, just the idea of putting it back into it's place and out of the law of the land.
You make some good points but the above isn't among them. Policy is personal beliefs, thus, to argue that personal beliefs shouldn't be a part of policy is to argue that 2+2=4 shouldn't be a part of mathematics.

I would also add that I am agitating for the demise of religion. It is a cancer on humanity and it, among other irrational beliefs, needs to go away. We need to stand up against this cancer and eradicate it, which is the impression I got from your original post.

Also, you argued that we shouldn't have tolerance for a crack dealer. Why? If he is selling a product that people voluntarily choose to purchase, who has he harmed? If he shouldn't be tolerated because his product is dangerous, shouldn't we also be intolerant of the brewer and the auto manufacturer? What about the gunsmith or, dare I say it, the clergyman? All of them are peddling dangerous products, so why the special treatment for the crack dealer?

The bottom line is that if we want to be rid of the crack dealer and the clergyman (or the rest of them), we need to get rid of the demand for their supply. That's accomplished by educating people, not by violence... which you mentioned in regard to the clergyman. But we have to tolerate them, lest we become the clergyman.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 01:13 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 12:48 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 10:46 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  ~but I refuse to back down as long as people's personal beliefs are affecting policy. I'm not advocating the demise of religion, just the idea of putting it back into it's place and out of the law of the land.
You make some good points but the above isn't among them. Policy is personal beliefs, thus, to argue that personal beliefs shouldn't be a part of policy is to argue that 2+2=4 shouldn't be a part of mathematics.

I would also add that I am agitating for the demise of religion. It is a cancer on humanity and it, among other irrational beliefs, needs to go away. We need to stand up against this cancer and eradicate it, which is the impression I got from your original post.

Also, you argued that we shouldn't have tolerance for a crack dealer. Why? If he is selling a product that people voluntarily choose to purchase, who has he harmed? If he shouldn't be tolerated because his product is dangerous, shouldn't we also be intolerant of the brewer and the auto manufacturer? What about the gunsmith or, dare I say it, the clergyman? All of them are peddling dangerous products, so why the special treatment for the crack dealer?

The bottom line is that if we want to be rid of the crack dealer and the clergyman (or the rest of them), we need to get rid of the demand for their supply. That's accomplished by educating people, not by violence... which you mentioned in regard to the clergyman. But we have to tolerate them, lest we become the clergyman.
Ok first off policy is not always dictated by personal belief. That's why we still have the right to freedom of religion (or in our case, lack thereof). Also I'm not saying we should or shouldn't be tolerant of the crack dealer, I was making the point that if Matt is going to assert the use of the word intolerance, then he would have to be tolerant of the crack dealer as well, otherwise he would be intolerant.
Would I like to see the end of religion? Sure. However, I'm setting my sights on a more realistic goal for my lifetime. If we could do away with religion in my lifetime, that would be great. For the time being I'll settle for the next best thing. Remember, any progress is still progress.

The problem as I see it is that people expect us to play by a certain set of rules. That, as atheist, we should always be calm and collective. That we should only discuss the facts and talk in a manner that quite frankly most people either aren't intellectually capable of following or find interesting enough to pay attention.

Well here's an even lower bottom line. Pricks like Robertson and Phelps can get up and manipulate people and use their emotions against them to convince people to understand their point of view, however when I do it, I'm being "intolerant". That's bullshit, there aren't a separate set of rules that we have to follow while the religious get to do whatever they want and I'll say this...

If I have to manipulate people and use their emotion against them in order to plant that seed of doubt in their mind, then that is exactly what I will do. If you think that makes me a bad person, then so be it, the ends justifies the means, end of story.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 01:33 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 01:13 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Ok first off policy is not always dictated by personal belief. That's why we still have the right to freedom of religion (or in our case, lack thereof). Also I'm not saying we should or shouldn't be tolerant of the crack dealer, I was making the point that if Matt is going to assert the use of the word intolerance, then he would have to be tolerant of the crack dealer as well, otherwise he would be intolerant.
Would I like to see the end of religion? Sure. However, I'm setting my sights on a more realistic goal for my lifetime. If we could do away with religion in my lifetime, that would be great. For the time being I'll settle for the next best thing. Remember, any progress is still progress.

The problem as I see it is that people expect us to play by a certain set of rules. That, as atheist, we should always be calm and collective. That we should only discuss the facts and talk in a manner that quite frankly most people either aren't intellectually capable of following or find interesting enough to pay attention.

Well here's an even lower bottom line. Pricks like Robertson and Phelps can get up and manipulate people and use their emotions against them to convince people to understand their point of view, however when I do it, I'm being "intolerant". That's bullshit, there aren't a separate set of rules that we have to follow while the religious get to do whatever they want and I'll say this...

If I have to manipulate people and use their emotion against them in order to plant that seed of doubt in their mind, then that is exactly what I will do. If you think that makes me a bad person, then so be it, the ends justifies the means, end of story.
If the policy is that people should be free to embrace or reject religion, that's someone's opinion. Be it one person's opinion or a million people's opinion, it's none the less and opinion. That we must eat in order to survive is not policy.

I do agree with you that there aren't two standards for two groups. I'm with you all the way there, although I would argue that calm and collective is a lot better than belligerent and violent, whatever the cause. So no, I don't think you're a bad person at all. I'm in your camp up to the point of the ends justifying the means. That may be in come cases but it's not a standard that should ever be entertained. After all, me raping your wife might satisfy my desire to have sex but I don't think you would agree that my end was justified by my means.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 01:41 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(15-03-2013 07:36 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  ...to the apologetic atheist out there who feel that we should just "all get along"... you're in the wrong game then. These people are ruthless and will go to no bounds to get their point of view pushed. We shouldn't be tolerating this shit. It doesn't matter what good religion does for people, it's getting in the way of progress. I'm done being nice about this. I've had enough of the bullshit, so let's just call it like it is. If you are a Christian, you might as well be a Nazi...

If you didn't want to sound prejudiced against an entire group of people, then you should have been more specific. Ghost called it right -- you've stereotyped all Christians as racist.

It's true that many religious people have excused racism. The Mormons did it by accusing blacks of carrying the "Mark of Cain" in the form of dark skin. Pat Robertson's father used to call blacks "Children of Ham". And as it's very clear from their website, the KKK are still proudly protestant.

It's not that the religious are necessarily racist, but one can be racist and justify it with scripture. After all, the Old Testament is clearly racist against all non-Jews, asserting that the Jews were free to kill them all simply for not being "the chosen race" and by living on land that the non-Jews claimed first. Even Jesus didn't reach out to the gentiles, spending his entire ministry within the borders of Israel. The bible has not a single word to say about reaching out to other races, and plenty to say about extending a sword to them. But all the same, most Christians ignore scripture that they disagree with or twist it to suit their lack of racism, and there are plenty of Christians who are not racist.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 01:53 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 01:33 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 01:13 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Ok first off policy is not always dictated by personal belief. That's why we still have the right to freedom of religion (or in our case, lack thereof). Also I'm not saying we should or shouldn't be tolerant of the crack dealer, I was making the point that if Matt is going to assert the use of the word intolerance, then he would have to be tolerant of the crack dealer as well, otherwise he would be intolerant.
Would I like to see the end of religion? Sure. However, I'm setting my sights on a more realistic goal for my lifetime. If we could do away with religion in my lifetime, that would be great. For the time being I'll settle for the next best thing. Remember, any progress is still progress.

The problem as I see it is that people expect us to play by a certain set of rules. That, as atheist, we should always be calm and collective. That we should only discuss the facts and talk in a manner that quite frankly most people either aren't intellectually capable of following or find interesting enough to pay attention.

Well here's an even lower bottom line. Pricks like Robertson and Phelps can get up and manipulate people and use their emotions against them to convince people to understand their point of view, however when I do it, I'm being "intolerant". That's bullshit, there aren't a separate set of rules that we have to follow while the religious get to do whatever they want and I'll say this...

If I have to manipulate people and use their emotion against them in order to plant that seed of doubt in their mind, then that is exactly what I will do. If you think that makes me a bad person, then so be it, the ends justifies the means, end of story.
If the policy is that people should be free to embrace or reject religion, that's someone's opinion. Be it one person's opinion or a million people's opinion, it's none the less and opinion. That we must eat in order to survive is not policy.

I do agree with you that there aren't two standards for two groups. I'm with you all the way there, although I would argue that calm and collective is a lot better than belligerent and violent, whatever the cause. So no, I don't think you're a bad person at all. I'm in your camp up to the point of the ends justifying the means. That may be in come cases but it's not a standard that should ever be entertained. After all, me raping your wife might satisfy my desire to have sex but I don't think you would agree that my end was justified by my means.
Your act of rape would not be beneficial to anyone. Especially if you consider the possible set of consequences that would go along with it, whether they be lawful or not. Again I'll cite that opinion doesn't always reflect opinion. For example, most schools don't allow people to wear t-shirts of questionable content, despite what the principle or school board may believe. These are policies that are set in order to prevent incidence.

There's a reason why rock music sells better than the sound of a babbling brook... Being passionate doesn't always mean being belligerent. Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and even Dr. King understood that. That's why each of these men chose words that drove home a point without yelling and screaming.

The ends justifying the means is perfectly reasonable, as long as the ends is in itself reasonable. Some people might argue that Hitler was trying to create a better Germany, but if that's the case, he would never have invaded Poland, France, and Egypt. Therefore his excuse to commit a genocide is a means to a false end, since the end was never about creating a better Germany, but domination and suppression of the people of the world... just like religion.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 02:07 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2013 02:10 AM by DeathsNotoriousAngel.)
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 01:41 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 07:36 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  ...to the apologetic atheist out there who feel that we should just "all get along"... you're in the wrong game then. These people are ruthless and will go to no bounds to get their point of view pushed. We shouldn't be tolerating this shit. It doesn't matter what good religion does for people, it's getting in the way of progress. I'm done being nice about this. I've had enough of the bullshit, so let's just call it like it is. If you are a Christian, you might as well be a Nazi...

If you didn't want to sound prejudiced against an entire group of people, then you should have been more specific. Ghost called it right -- you've stereotyped all Christians as racist.

It's true that many religious people have excused racism. The Mormons did it by accusing blacks of carrying the "Mark of Cain" in the form of dark skin. Pat Robertson's father used to call blacks "Children of Ham". And as it's very clear from their website, the KKK are still proudly protestant.

It's not that the religious are necessarily racist, but one can be racist and justify it with scripture. After all, the Old Testament is clearly racist against all non-Jews, asserting that the Jews were free to kill them all simply for not being "the chosen race" and by living on land that the non-Jews claimed first. Even Jesus didn't reach out to the gentiles, spending his entire ministry within the borders of Israel. The bible has not a single word to say about reaching out to other races, and plenty to say about extending a sword to them. But all the same, most Christians ignore scripture that they disagree with or twist it to suit their lack of racism, and there are plenty of Christians who are not racist.
You mean the way they have stereotyped atheist as people who just want to piss in everyone's cereal? Why am I supposed to play by a different set of rules? Why do I have to play their game? Sure, I don't think ALL Christians are racist, but then again I did clarify a few posts later that I'm talking about "Christians" (using the air quotes). I don't care if people think I'm a prick as long as I'm being sincere. If the "Christians" can badger on and make assumptions and stereotype people they see as a threat, then so can I... it's called equality. I'm not going to walk into a gun fight with a knife.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 02:22 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 02:07 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  You mean the way they have stereotyped atheist as people who just want to piss in everyone's cereal? Why am I supposed to play by a different set of rules? Why do I have to play their game? Sure, I don't think ALL Christians are racist, but then again I did clarify a few posts later that I'm talking about "Christians" (using the air quotes). I don't care if people think I'm a prick as long as I'm being sincere. If the "Christians" can badger on and make assumptions and stereotype people they see as a threat, then so can I... it's called equality. I'm not going to walk into a gun fight with a knife.

Because two wrongs don't make a right. We don't live by a double-standard; if it's wrong when Christians do it, then it's wrong when we do it. But I can't help but notice that in order to justify stereotyping all Christians, you again had to blame all Christians ("the way they have stereotyped atheists").

You're being irrational. You know that you're doing wrong, because you'd see it as wrong if a Christian did it to you (as you've even pointed out and "ranted about" in the above paragraph). You're not "walking into a gun fight with a knife", but rather starting a gun fight because you assumed that all of your opponents are also armed with guns. If you'd look at them as individuals, you'd notice when you're the one being overly aggressive.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: