David Horowitz (you all remember him, right? Deranged anti-intellectual wanker?) He has declared 22-26 October to be Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, to be represented with talks by such towering intellects as Rick Santorum, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity.
Brian Leiter has a complementary suggestion: the week after should be Christian-Fascism Awareness Week.
Now I don’t want to interfere with Horowitz’s effort, which is in the spirit of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan: "fundamentalism is the enemy of all civilized humanity." So one week devoted to Islamic fundamentalism seems right; but why not devote the next week to Christian fundamentalism? The rise of Christian Fascism has gotten some attention lately, but not nearly enough in our "politically correct" culture. Sure, the Christian Fascists aren’t quite as scary, since they rarely commit terrorist acts (except against abortion service providers); on the other hand, they’re right here in our midst (even in the White House some say), while the Islamic Bogeyman-In-Chief is in a cave somewhere in Pakistan.
I’d suggest that the Christo-Fascists have done far more damage to our country than any Islamo-Fascist — after all, the Islamic hordes haven’t been responsible for stripping away our civil liberties, nor did they force us to spend trillions on a fool’s war, nor did they turn Jesus into Mammon, nor did they replace education and science with ignorance and piety.
I’m all for this suggestion. I’m sure that Santorum, Coulter, Hannity, Dobson, Perkins, Robertson, etc., etc., etc. will all happily join us in fighting this grave threat to American security and freedom, too.
Hmm. Well, good luck with that, PZ. I’d love to see it too, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Christ-o-rama awareness week. Dec 18th- 25th.
Wow – they even managed to squeeze some global-warming denial into the event. Impressive.
You hit it right on the head sir, the Christians are far more a danger to us than the Islamics are right now.
You saw this coming- but you can’t call a group fascist without first understanding what the word fascism means.
Just because they do it doesn’t mean we have to descend to the same level.
I’m a pedanto-fascist. Here’s Eric Blair talking about the use of the word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
“Just because they do it doesn’t mean we have to descend to the same level.”
I’m not for wantonly tossing around terms like “fascist” either, but if it’s for satirical purposes I have no problem with it. This strikes me as one of those instances.
I found Cal Thomas’s recent column on this to be particularly disgusting.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas100907.php3
By the way, John, Christowareness Week isn’t Dec 18-25; it actually runs Jan 1-Dec 31.
Perhaps more to the point, here’s Benito Mussolini quoted in the same article that Christian Burham links to in #6 above:
One thing finally occurred to me, and that is the definition of what a terrorist is. It finally hit me that the definition is, “Escalation.” If you attack me and take out 100 of my innocents, you can be sure I’ll aim for 150 of yours next time. Now, I know that means you’ll aim for 200 of mine next time, but aren’t you deterred by the fact that you know I’ll take out 250?
And so on.
By that definition, I really think W is a terrorist. And, of course, he has enemies that are willing to go along in this game. “Hmmm, we got 2,750, and you got 100,000. That’s gonna be tough to top, but heck, I’m sure I can do it.”
And he’ll try. And then we’ll try.
The “bigger person” eventually starts de-escalating. Increasing violence doesn’t help, and I am certain that neither W nor bin Laden understand that. So while I 100% agree that Osama meets my definition (if it’s a valid definition), then so does W. So I would urge these supporters of W to recognize who it is they’re following; the decider, the escalator.
What we’ve done in Iraq and even in Afghanistan will shame our nation for generations. I’m so sad that I see no way out, and following a self-loathing warthog like Coulter, who thinks women should not be allowed to vote, is a shameful act.
I was appalled when I read Cal Thomas’s column, referenced above.
We live in a scary time, where our president, who leads the largest military the world has ever seen, believes in escalation to the present degree. This is a very dangerous combination.
Once in a while, I go off like this. Sorry.
the disclaimer for Cal’s article states:
The problem arises when folks PRINT out articles and discard them in, say, the trash.
which is actually more effort than his article is worth.
This highlights an interesting schism within the New Atheist movement (and larger atheist community): those who view Christian and Islamic (and Jewish) fundamentalism as equivalent in fanaticism and dangerousnes, those who believe that Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalism is more malign and more dangerous than militant Islam, and those who view militant Islam as currently the greatest threat.
I thought that Fascism had as one of its elements an alliance with corporate interests some how I never would have thought fundamentalist Islam was very interested in what the corporate world was up to Islam does not condone the charging of interest. but the western right wing conservative parties are all about corporate interests.
can there be such a thing theocratic fascism?
I heard an interview of Horowitz in which he told of his early days working with the Black Panthers. sounded like a strange duck to me, might be some personal issues there
I thought that Fascism had as one of its elements an alliance with corporate interests some how I never would have thought fundamentalist Islam was very interested in what the corporate world was up to Islam does not condone the charging of interest. but the western right wing conservative parties are all about corporate interests.
can there be such a thing theocratic fascism?
I heard an interview of Horowitz in which he told of his early days working with the Black Panthers. sounded like a strange duck to me, might be some personal issues there
I have to agree with DiPietro (#7). Since the word is already being abused using it for the purpose of satire may help illustrate to those abusing it the error of their ways.
However, it is interesting to note that heathens, atheists, secular progressives, et al., are not the only ones making comparisons of the Christian right to fascists, Christians are doing it as well.
I find it funny that a major theme of the week is “the oppression of women in Islam” and Ann Coulter is a speaker. After all, she has been at the forefront of equality for women! One fine example of her advocacy:
It will be good for female college students at USC and Tulane (located in New Orleans, that city Republicans did so much for after Katrina), to hear the wisdom of this bastion of women’s rights.
I don’t know if anyone’s noticed- but A** C****** has been receiving much less in the way of publicity this time around.
Her book is currently at #18 on the Amazon.com 100 list- which sounds OK, but in reality it’s a disaster for C******.
Maybe we should get savvy and stop pointing out C******’s idiocy at the times when s/he’s promoting a book.
I’ve been saying for some time that one of the grossest and most dangerous mis-characterizations of recent years is the claim that the Islamic terrorists were/are “attacking our freedoms.” The fundamentalists killed innocent people on 9/11, but that did nothing to threaten our freedom.
Except that it enabled the neo-cons to actually start stripping away our civil liberties. It’s amazing that the right-wing flag-wavers who pay so much lip service to “freedom” are so willing to toss out our basic civil rights. (Or maybe it’s not so astounding, once you realize that they don’t actually understand what freedom, justice, etc. are.)
As part of Prof. Leiter’s careful examination of whether religion deserves to be singled out for special treatment legally, Why Tolerate Religion?, he identifies three distinguishing characteristics of religion:
It’s not too hard to see why that’s a recipe for potential disaster when combined with government.
Yep, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
PZ says: “…after all, the Islamic hordes haven’t been responsible for stripping away our civil liberties, nor did they force us to spend trillions on a fool’s war, nor did they turn Jesus into Mammon, nor did they replace education and science with ignorance and piety.”
Hyperbole for sake of dramatics? OK among friends over a few too many beers maybe.. but dangerous when we are in forums that are trying to promote reason, fairness, facts, reality, etc. Sorry but I somehow feel we have to hold ourselves to higher principles (e.g., factual presentations, properly labeled reasonable opinions). I am on the same page as you and can read the gist and agree (AMEN brother!), but (and I am NOT asking for framing here – god no!!) we must not sound like “them” as we profess disdain for “them.” My 2 cents PZ, understand it comes from a “friend.”
“David Horowitz (you all remember him, right? Deranged anti-intellectual wanker?)”
That reminded me to comment on a phenomenon I’ve noticed that is very widespread among US conservatives: the very sort of whiny victim mentality they like to project onto traditionally downtrodden groups like blacks or the poor. They whine about things like political correctness, the “liberal media”, “liberal academia”, Native Americans operating casinos, feminism, “evolutionists”, climatologists, abortion, and not receiving enough minority votes. There must be something in conservatism that attracts so many whiny types.
There must be something in conservatism that attracts so many whiny types.
the kinky sex?
I was born in Spain in 1960, and so was raised in a post-fascist pseudo-theocracy. From my perspective, I consider there is a historical linkage between Catholicism and Fascism.
Well, here in Spain they waged a war against the legitimate regime and sustained a dictatorship that lasted 35 years and allied itself with the nazis and the fascisti. Meanwhile the catholics of the world, Americans included, nodded their heads and talked about the great work against the atheist hordes that plagued republican Spain and the regeneration of the moral order that the Church was doing.
The Spanish catholic hierarchy even had enough time to recant his own sins (in part, of course) and form part of the late antifrancoist movement.
Since then the time of repent has passed, and now they are preparing for canonization a bunch of their “martyrs” of the Civil War. Meanwhile loathe the initiatives of the actual government to find the mass graves of republican combatants and give the families of the murdered some rest.
As you can see Christian-Fascism has much more sense in some parts of the world than Islamo-Fascism, at least in an historical sense.
Ichthyic:
I have a friend who is one of those rare gay conservatives and this may explain it….
Draco, I went back to Spain in 1993 and it did feel peculiar to walk on Franco’s grave-marker*. He was an exemplary Catholic and I was taught to look up to him.
*call me cynical, but I wonder if his bones really are there.
The kinky sex part sounds quite attractive until you realise it involves struggling into two scuba diving outfits.
The “Valle de los Caídos” (Valley of the Fallen) were Franco’s remains are placed, among those of prominent “national-catholics” (the term used to define the blurry and adaptative francoist doctrine) was built by thousands of forced laborers as a pay for his religious sins and political responsibilities committed during the Republic and the Civil War.
So much for the exemplariness of catholic values.
PZ,
I’m sure that rant was fun for you, but the fact is that we’ve lost far more liberty to plain old fascists like FDR than we have to any efforts of the christians. Roosevelt imprisoned tens of thousands of US citizens for nothing more than their ancestry. GWB has done some things that are certainly out of line, but he never tried to add judges to the supreme court and just increase their number until he had a majority.
-jcr
If the organizers were smart, they would syndicate the speaking series with the nation’s Comedy Club chain. They’re missing a great marketing opportunity.
Brian Leiter certainly means well, but geez, every week is Christian-Fascism Awareness Week. One week it’s James Dobson obsessing over a guy who makes naked statues of Jesus out of dark chocolate, saying it’s the worst insult to Christianity since the Romans fed them to the lions. Another week there’s some pathetic Falwell acolyte found dead, encased in two scuba suits with a dildo rammed in his butt.
What would be far better would be one entire week when these people didn’t make us aware of themselves. Just one week – one teeny week! – of Christian-Fascism non-awareness. Is that too much to ask?
(grin)
PZ, I just want to thank you for inspiring that Greasemonkey killfile script. I don’t use it often, but I’m glad it’s there when I need it.
So… Horowitz wants to stop the Islamo-fascist oppression of women so that they can have the freedom to become sub-par composers and mathematicians? Well, I guess that’s a start.
“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ’64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”
AC didn’t say, but of course she meant WHITE men. African Americans are much too smart to vote in droves for the repugs.
I would support such an effort. :)
Anybody who has spent any time in the talk.origins newsgroups is familiar with the term “Loki.” A Loki attempts satire to ridicule “Kookdom” in Talk.origins as in other forums, whether to pretend to be a flat-earther, a creationist, ID’er, etc. They keep it up until someone else catches them at their game.
With that introduction, I call Loki on Concerned Joe.
Too many “quotes,” Joe. That’s how I caught ya.
Catholic support for Franco is one of the things that led to me question my faith. How can the Church support a brutal dictator so opposed to freedom, and yet at the same time denounce such clerics as Archbishop Romero for Liberation Theology? It didn’t accord with what I had learned in catechism classes about the church’s role in promoting freedom and liberty. Well, the Church is not so great at supporting freedom, especially when it perceives a threat from Communism and their bully buddies stand in strong opposition to socialism.
And as for Christian Fascism Awareness week; if the atheists and secularists were as effective as the Christian Church Leagues at creating think tanks and throwing money at anti-Muslim speakers, we might be able to put something like this together. I would be happy to join in a blogosphere version of such a thing.
I guess I was a little surprised to see UM-Morris on that list.
Sorry to hear that, PZ…
Could someone possible tell me when the last time there was a concerted effort by a group of christians to actually execute people for being homosexual? Or who the large scale christian group are that wish to deny basic education to girls? Or who put out death threats against people for the books they write? Or for leaving the christian church?
Yes, there is an issue with people trying to impose a moral set that many of us disagree with. But calling it fascism, and comparing it to the rank and disgusting evil that is done in the name of Islam is not just sloppy thinking and moral equivalency at its worst, it also manages to play into the hands of the christians who we do oppose.
Have you been paying attention at all, Donalbain? Or are you just allergic to “The Google”? They are fascist, in the most strict definition of the word. Not just the godwinned “we don’t like them” fascist, but “the unification of corporate, government, military and religious power under an exalted, worshipped leader figure for the purpose of advancing a uniform, authoritarian order on the populace, and destroying all opposition through any means.”
Is this Fascism big ‘F’ or fascism small ‘f’?
The former is a political and historical phenomenon, the latter a world-view that I have seen characterized as “the tendency to treat other people as property” or “the denial of fully human status to certain social groups”.
I’ve long held the belief that any denominational religious affiliation is, to a good approximation, fascist at its core. Firstly, the deity owns your soul, forever; secondly, if you’re not a believer you merit lesser treatment.
FDR was a fascist? Who knew?
Personally, I dislike broccoli. I think broccoli was a fascist.
Stogoe: I notice that you failed to answer my question.
“Collusion” (Carlo Bonini, Giuseppe D’avanzo, James Marcus (Translator)) is a rather interesting read.
Would this include information in regards to sex? Or perhaps scientific education? If so, that wouldn’t be so hard to find. If not, then you need to be clearer on what you mean.
I think a better idea is to promote a “Anti-Christian Liberal News Reporter Awareness Week” or “Christian America is the Cause of All the World’s Problems Week” “Let’s Offend the Hypocritical Christians Week”. Your opinion of Christians in America is judgmental and ignorant. Of course, those are both traits you ascribe to Christians but as you have demonstrated Christians hold no monopoly on them. Your basic premise is Christians are far worse than the murdering hordes of the Islamo-Fascists. You are worse than the Islamo-Fascists yourself. The freedom you enjoy to express yourself would not be possible under the reign of Sharia Law. It is only by the grace of Christian Fascists that brought you the Bill of Rights that you can express your hatred against them. You are a drain of good people of this land. Move to Pakistan where you can live smugly and flip your middle finger to those Christian Fascists that have so wronged you. You just plain SUCK!
MikeM (#8):
Really? I mean, it’s Cal Thomas, so of course it’s heavy on the stupid–but as far as I can tell he’s just saying “Christianity = Good, Islam = Denies Basic Beliefs of Christianity, therefore Islam = Not Christianity = Bad.”
That doesn’t seem “disgusting” to me, at least by the usual standards of Wacko Fundie discourse.
> I thought that Fascism had as one of its elements
> an alliance with corporate interests
# 13, that’s known as the Dimitrov definition of fascim – that fascim was the puppet of big business (an oversimplification, and a potentially dangerous one, wich might have hindered the fight against fascim, for it failed to explain why fascim appealed to the middle and lower classes). It was formulated by Dimitrov in 1934 and was obsolete – even by Dimitrovs own standards – about one year later, when the Komintern decided that an united front with the western democracies against fascism was preferable to radical anticapitalism.
This said, corporate interests exist in fascism, as in any other poloitical movement. Corporations want to get along with politicians, and vice versa. But what is meaned by the term “corporative fascim” is not cooperation betweewn private enterprise and fascists, or that fascists are just capitalist puppets, but a corporative or cooperative state, like the Portugal of Salazar or the Argentina of Peron. Such states may actually use anticapitalist rethoric. Fascists are usually unprincipled when it comes to economic policy. They try to play out different classes and econmic interests against each other to consolidate their power. They might try to endear themselves to corporate interest as antisocialists or as protectionists that keep away foreign competition. Or they might try to endear themselves to the lower classes by acting as anticapitalists. Fascist economic policy is therefore very eclectic, and might range from national bolshevism to an alliance with big business.
> I never would have thought fundamentalist
> Islam was very interested in what the corporate world
There probably is a lot of Saudi oil-money behind Wahabism, Salafism and other such radicaal Islamist groups.
> can there be such a thing theocratic fascism?
What about the Ustasha? Very fascist and very Catholic.
Bruce (#44):
I call “satire”!
Who was it who wrote that Bill of Rights thing again? Oh, yeah–it was this guy:
HP:
DON’T KILLFILE ME, BRO!!!!!
Donaldbain, it would appear that Bruce is a victim of the very anti-education bent of Xians you asked us to demonstrate.
Bruce,
Really? So anyone who compares certain Christian movements or Christian fundamentalism to Islamofascism inherently holds that position? That doesn’t seem right does it? In fact, it seems you have created a false dichotomy here by assuming that their are only two options, either you don’t compare Christians and Muslims fundamentalists or you do and believe Christians are worse. However, you could compare Christian fundamentalists to Muslims fundamentalists and believe that while Muslims are responsible for more violence, Christian fundamentalists are a greater threat to the integrity and rights we have established in our Constitution because they are a powerful lobbying group within our country. Does this mean they are “worse”? Well, that depends on how worse is defined I suppose, and also on what you are addressing by worse. In the aforementioned example, I suppose Christian fundamentalists are “worse” in the sense that they can successfully lobby to reduce or infringe human rights through legislation while Muslim fundamentalists are “worse” in the sense of the violence they use in an attempt to exert influence. Then again, you could think that the two groups are equally bad and then your false dichotomy just goes right out the window doesn’t it?
Really? I don’t seem to remember atheists bombing abortion clinics or government buildings for godlessness. I don’t seem to recall atheists lobbying to exclude homosexuals from having equal rights. I don’t seem to recall atheists advocating slavery based on biblical principles during the civil war, or later using the same argument to justify segregation. I don’t seem to recall atheists arguing against the Constitution because it was a “godless” document and any nation that relied on it would be damned to failure by an angry, wrathful god (I guess the anti-Federalists were wrong about that one).
I already partially addressed this in my last paragraph but I’ll elaborate a little more. The Federalist papers, wherein those supporting the Constitution advocated for its adoption, do not contain one citation to the Bible. The anti-Federalist papers, advocating against the Constitution, do. The man mostly responsible for the authorship of the Constitution, James Madison, was not a Christian by the standards of most Christians today. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ or the Trinitarian concept of god. He, like Jefferson and other key founders, were theistic rationalists who had not quite accepted a non-intervening deity. The Constitution itself does not contain a mention of any god. Additionally, the concepts embedded in the First Amendment, such as freedom of speech, the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause, come from enlightenment thinkers such as Locke and Rousseau. These ideas were not part of any Christian government and do not descend from Christian principles, especially the Free Exercise clause which directly contradicts the First Commandment. Moreover, as Jefferson noted, English common law, from which our common law descends, comes from pagan institutions that existed prior to the establishment of Christianity in northern Europe. Not only was our Bill of Rights brought to us by non-Christians, it is in conflict with the basic Christian principles.
That’s right, if you don’t like it, move! What a mature, tempered response focused entirely on a rational approach to those you are trying to persuade. May I suggest a few classes, such as logic, Constitutional law, and American history?
I find it sadly ironic that the westerners who most vehemently defend islamism are the first people the islamists would kill/imprison/forcibly-convert if they acheived their geopolitical goals.
It is possible to be both anti-islamist and anti-christianist, but it requires the courage to step outside of liberal or conservative orthodoxy and endure the back-biting of one’s (former) political allies.
Care to name some of them?
Donaldain, it would appear that Bruce is a victim of the very anti-education bent of Xians you asked us to demonstrate.
Oh c’mon. Rieux nailed that one. ‘Bruce’ ain’t for real. Can’t be. No way.
No, no, tell me he can’t be. Please. We can agree on this.
Anyway. Two things:
1) I think ‘fascist’ generally applies to the movement(s) described in the Leiter Reports link given in the post (a href=”http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/christian_fasci.html”>this one, again, for clarity). Ya gotcher authoritarianism, your mysticism, yer antidemocratic tendencies, sense of grievance, xenophobia, hatred and demonization of the ‘other’, threats of retributive violence, fixation on ‘moral failings’… the notion of the nation as a unified whole is a little more slippery here, and it’s so common to political movements, I’m not sure how diagnostic it could ever be; guess maybe considering relative emphasis, it’s useful. On balance, anyway, I’d still say using the term in this case is reasonably descriptive. Folks messing around with what exactly the term means could quibble, sure.
And 2) as to this accusation that PZ has drawn a false equivalence between the Christian extremists of the US and the Islamists, I don’t find this at all. He wrote, specifically that the former ‘have done far more damage’ to the US than the latter, and I think this is a defensible comment. I’d broadly say the Islamists are several degrees nastier and more dangerous where they’re actually influential, yes, but they just aren’t that influential in the US, nor partircularly likely to be, any time soon.
Note, tho’, that I said just ‘defensible’. It’s a bit of a call, I guess, since, despite their stated and abominable aims, calling which recent US outrages you can actually ascribe directly to ‘Christo-fascism’ (Gauntanamo? Extraordinary rendition? A ruinous war fought on a tragicomically, hilariously transparent pretext? Or just the raising of a zombie horder of admirers who’ll shout their support for the idiot-in-chief who presided over said disgusting messes and who generally just poison the political atmosphere with their idiot braying for brains?) is complicated, and yes, the Islamists do have some 3,000 plus murders pretty directly on their plates…
That said, I take it as being a generally appropriate comment, in the context of satire, nonetheless, apart from how you weigh that call. Seein’ as saying, broadly, to Horowitz et al, no, the Moslems probably aren’t really the problem we should be worrying most about, not here, not now, at least, is entirely appropriate.
So yeah, let’s have that following week. Makes sense to me.
Bob. No. I mean basic education aliong the lines of being taught to read. THAT is the sort of thing that is banned in the name of Islam. The problems of the Bush administration pale into feeble insignificance in comparison.
The atheist schism: ‘Which is the greater threat: fundamentalist Christianity or militant Islam?’ This overlaps with the debate over whether both, neither, or only one of the two is appropriately characterized as “fascism.”
1. militant Islam
Christopher Hitchens:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens
“the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face”
Sam Harris:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/
“Recent condemnations of the Bush administration’s use of the phrase “Islamic fascism” are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evening+Standard+article+on+Islam+in+Britain
“The mistake that Blair and Bush made is that they called it a War on Terror, whereas in fact, it’s a War on Islamic Fascism.”
Steven Weinberg:
http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017,00.html
“Dawkins treats Islam as just another deplorable religion, but there is a difference. The difference lies in the extent to which religious certitude lingers in the Islamic world, and in the harm it does. Richard Dawkins’s even-handedness is well-intentioned, but it is misplaced. I share his lack of respect for all religions, but in our times it is folly to disrespect them all equally.”
Michel Onfray, vehemently (and equally?) opposed to all three major Abrahamic faiths, nevertheless notes in The Atheist Manifesto:
“Indeed, we could call the last hundred years the fascist century. Brown and red in Europe and Asia, military khaki in South America. But green as well, which we too often overlook.”
“like every form of fascism, Islamic theocracy rests on a hypermoral logic.”
2. fundamentalist Christianity
Richard Dawkins:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/?pn=1
“We’re seeing a rather unholy alliance between the burgeoning theocracy in the U.S. and its allies, the theocrats in the Islamic world. … Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion.”
Melissa McEwan:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/09/lordy-begordy_25.html
“movement leaders are looking for new ways to inspire the flock, with Daddy Dobson, for example, “breaking away from his traditional field of child psychology to argue that foreign terrorists are a threat to families” in order to get the Christofascists off their butts and into the voting booths.”
Oh! Earlier, some guy came into one of my classes to talk about this. He mentioned Ann Coulter, and it’s only in retrospect that I realize he actually agreed with the quote he picked out.
Anyways, he gave all of us handouts. I made a paper crane out of it! I’d maybe look at what it said, but then I’d miss my crane.
Still waiting for AnthonyH to tell us just who these people are who are “vehemently defending” Islamism. Come now, don’t leave us in suspense!
AnthonyH @ It is possible to be both anti-islamist and anti-christianist,
That would pretty much define and atheist, now wouldn’t it? Maybe I am missing something but I was under the impression that God, Allah, Pan, the Tooth Fairy are all BS to an atheist.
Well Pan might be an explanation for the behaviour of politicians and security forces when faced by terrorism. Panic is a very useful thing to induce in the populace, when you are intent on creating an empire for yourself.
The damage to the economy and the enjoyment of life caused by actions of the government far outweigh the direct damage achieved by the terrorists.
Meaning, of course, that the terrorists succeeded brilliantly- that’s exactly what terror attacks are intended to accomplish. (Of course they probably never dreamed that as a bonus they’d provoke us into getting bogged down in an endless occupation of Iraq.)
No wonder Bush put leaking the bin Laden video for political gain over capturing bin Laden himself. Objectively, they’re on the same side.
As tragic as it was, the toll from the WTC is less than the number of traffic deaths each month.
Bush has instituted a series of criminal measures and unconstitutional laws to “protect” the public from what?
What are people so afraid of? They are so much more likely to die in a car accident. People should be more afraid every time they get in a car. Even if there were one 9/11 every year, would that be worth all the authoritarian measures introduced to prevent? It would still be more than twelve times less than the traffic accidents.
Imagine spending all this tens of billions of dollars on insuring that roads and cars were safer trying to prevent all accidents.
It doesn’t make sense in mathematical terms to be so scared of a terrorist attack. Can’t such an attack simply be called a sort of accident?
I hereby declare Christian Fishism Awareness Week!
Crap tags don’t work:
http://lunartalks.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/get-your-christ-outta-my-fish-piscology-now/
I mean basic education aliong the lines of being taught to read. THAT is the sort of thing that is banned in the name of Islam.
well, banned, unless it takes the form of forcing kids to memorize the Qur’an (in the original language, btw).
I recall some discussions either here or on PT based on some news stories about Muslim schools in NY that still practice the “traditional teaching methods” wrt to the Qur’an.
OTOH, there are plenty of bible-thumper schools that essentially force kids to memorize the wholly babble, too.
And do those bible-thumper schools BAN the teaching of girls? Are Christians trying to make those the only legally allowed schools in the countries where they live? Are they actually giving death threats to girls and women who want to learn to read?
No. They are not. We may not agree with Christians on everything, but the moral equivilancy being displayed on this thread is really annoying.
lunartalks –
rather than abandoning the latin root, why not point out to the idiot xians that their holy fishy symbol was in fact stolen from pagans, and then had a new bit of rationalization attached to it?
works much better when you ask a xian why he has a horizontal picture of a vagina stuck to his bumper.
I’m sure you know of the history of the Vesica Pisces, before is was co-opted by the xians?
http://www.halexandria.org/dward097.htm
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsvesica.htm
Are Christians trying to make those the only legally allowed schools in the countries where they live?
LOL
yes, they are.
In fact, if you look at the history of education in the US, that was defacto the standard (bible schools) only a hundred years or so back.
in the areas where creationism still reigns supreme, they ARE in fact trying to make it so the wholly babble is the primary source of educational material.
or hadn’t you noticed the repeated attempts to insert it as such into the public high schools via the ID meme?
they just have to be more “subtle” about it here in the US in modern times, than those governments in the Muslim world that already have Mullahs running everything.
it’s not smart to think that the bible thumpers want anything different from the Qu’ran thumpers wrt to control of reading material.
I would suggest you spend some time on forums such as those maintained by the “Christianexodus” folks.
http://www.christianexodus.org/
know your enemy.
Walter Laqueur, historian, expert on fascism:
http://www.laqueur.net/index2.php?r=2&rr=4
“It is one of the ironies of the debate on Islamofascism that some of those who have argued that Islamic fundamentalism is at most a cultural but not a political or military challenge to the West have had fewer hesitations to call Christian fundamentalism in the US and elsewhere at least “potentially fascist”.”
As if Walter Laqueur does not have his own more or less hidden agenda.
Steve LaBonne (#52, #57): I was away from my computer, not avoiding the debate.
OK, you’re right – nobody on this thread was actually defending Islamism or Islamofascism. Apologies for overgeneralizing and not reading closely.
I still find it annoying when other atheists criticize people who publicly condemn islamism; I feel that islamism is a clear and present danger. Not expecting that all other atheists agree with me on this, though.
I still stand by my contention that many progressives tend to give islamists a pass, while vehemently attacking christianism. I can track down blogosphere examples if you’re really interested; may take me a while to reply, though.
I personally experienced a situation where a lesbian pagan acquaintance went ballistic on a gay atheist friend. My friend was paraphrasing Sam Harris’ arguments against islamism, and pointed out that LP would fair poorly under an islamist regime. That got my friend accused of racism, islamophobia, etc.
Coulter? She is the wealthy republican-christian fundamentalist answer to the Scarlet Pimpernel. I’ve seen acne-faced young men shamelessly drooling over that thing. Literally. Simply unaccountable.
The language needs a word that is very much stronger than “grotesque”.
I feel that islamism is a clear and present danger.
the point is not to claim that Islam cannot be perverted to create a “clear and present danger”, but that ANY religion can be easily perverted in the same fashion, and xianity has its full share of this as well.
BobL (#58) quoted my statement: “It is possible to be both anti-islamist and anti-christianist,” and replied:
That would pretty much define and atheist, now wouldn’t it? Maybe I am missing something but I was under the impression that God, Allah, Pan, the Tooth Fairy are all BS to an atheist.
I think you’re confusing “anti-christianist” with “anti-christian.” A christianist is someone who believes in a political system designed around christian values, ie believing in school prayer, publicly funded creche displays. Not all christians are christianists. One of the harshest critics of both christianism and islamism is Andrew Sullivan a practicing catholic.
Donalbain in #37 asked “Could someone possible tell me when the last time there was a concerted effort by a group of christians to actually execute people for being homosexual?”
Would murder rather than formal execution satisfy your curiosity?
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/05/855
Donalbain,
The last time I know of that christians killed homosexuals as a government policy (as opposed to individual closet cases going on a rampage) would have been in Germany during the holocaust. So, from the late 1930’s through May, 1945.
-jcr
“FDR was a fascist? Who knew?”
Any student of history.
Google for “new deal”, “packing the court”, and “japanese internment”. Yes, he was a fascist.
-jcr
Donalbain in #65 complained “the moral equivilancy being displayed on this thread is really annoying.”
Where is the moral equivalency? Can you honestly and unemotionally argue that Islamists, egregious though militant Islamic fundamentalists’ actions undeniably are, have succeeded, beyond providing an excuse for W-idiot, in causing direct harm to American soldiers’ lives and the lives of innocent Iraqis, or to American politics, pocketbooks, and education?
Donal? Irish Catholic or Irish Protestant name?
In my last comment, I should have said “direct harm to American soldiers’ lives and the lives of innocent Iraqis” pre-invasion. Yes, I do concede that some intra-Iraqi violence existed pre-invasion on orders from Sadam.
Arnosium Upinarum in #71 “Coulter? I’ve seen acne-faced young men shamelessly drooling over that thing.”
They probably had a ‘thing’ for mentally challenged palomino ponies when they were prepubescent.
Ichthyic (cool handle, BTW): islamIST; not islam, not islamIC. See my post #73. The term “islamist” is more neutral than islamofascist, and avoids all the messy debate over the term “fascist.”
To address #51 and #52, some Western activists and intellectuals have a favorable view of what they tend to characterize as the anti-imperialist resistance aspects of militant Islamists. Of course this does not constitute an endorsement of the theology of these groups.
George Galloway:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Galloway
“I want to congratulate the Lebanese resistance and their leading edge, Hizbollah, whose martyrs and heroes have achieved this great victory. And in particular to their leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, whose name now rings in joy around the world.”
Noam Chomsky:
http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2689
“I think Nasrallah has a reasoned and persuasive argument that the arms should be in the hands of Hizbullah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there are plenty of background reasons for that.”
Arundhati Roy:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/82293_comment.php
“Like most resistance movements, [the Iraqis] combine a motley range of assorted factions. Former Baathists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up collaborationists, communists, etc. … But if we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity.”
Dario Fo on 9/11:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/125/1/30
“The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty…. Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation.”
Thought you might enjoy a couple more quotations about fascism from one who knew about it. —
“Modern fascism should be properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state, military and corporate power.”
“Fascism believes neither in the possibility nor in the utility of perpetual peace, because war alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it.” – Benito Mussolini
Sounds like Dick Cheney to me.
John C. Randolph: “Google for “new deal”, “packing the court”, and “japanese internment”. Yes, he was a fascist.”
Ridiculous. By those criteria, what other US presidents were fascists? Woodrow Wilson? Teddy Roosevelt? All of them? Next you’re going to insist that the New Deal was just like Mussolini’s national syndicalism. Yawn.
LOL — oh my Odin .. Mike Haubrich, FCD #35 called Loki on me!!!
Honestly I’m a-chuckling! Don’t know really (am I dense or what!?!) what Mike intended (should I be insulted or honored?) but I’m smiling.
To set the record straight – even though I may not express myself well I stand by my post: watch our hyperbole because it can be used against us, and I’m on the same basic page as (for lack of broader label) PZ is.
Distinti saluti
I find it rather ironic that the one person who voted AGAINST the “Patriot Act”, supported, I will assume, by the majority of so-called “christians” in the Congress, was our fine Wisconsin Senator, Russell Feingold, a Jew!
I’m all for it, but I wouldn’t stop at Christian fascism or Islamo-fascism. Lets declare a specific week to be “Dogma free”. No talking about, reading about, or thinking about any religion or formally proclaimed doctrine. Watch how smoothly things go, and how quickly fighting and violence around the globe flickers out. We don’t need organized religion to be decent human beings. We don’t dogma in any form. I’m not an atheist, I just believe that direct experience with mystical energies (God) and communion with these energies should be a very personal matter…..like bathing. We CAN do that with others at times, but we generally don’t. In any case, there should be no reason to organize either activity, or standardize them.
Help me out here. Where in the New Testamant is there ANYWHERE that it says to kill people? In fact, quite the opposite. Turn the other cheek…… Just because stupid people USE religion as their EXCUSE for bad behavior doesn’t mean the religion is wrong. The people are wrong, not the Christian religion. The Christian religion is one of PEACE.The Bible does not promote forcing Christianity down anyones throat, in fact just the opposite,”…shake the dust off your feet.” And Christianity is a reasoning faith. Fact: Jesus walked the earth. Fact: He healed people and raised people from the dead. Not only did His followers attest to this, but also His detractors. No where is it said that He didn’t do these things! Fact: His body is gone! Where did it go? His detractors wouldn’t have taken it, and His followers wouldn’t have died for a “known” lie! Many people will die for a lie, but they don’t know it’s a lie! If His followers took the body and “KNEW” He wasn’t raised from the dead, then surely they wouldn’t have died for a known lie! Propheticly, the Bible has been 100% accurate, archeologically, again accurate. If people actually followed the 10 commandments, we wouldn’t be in the quagmire we’re in today! And the world would be a great place! Jesus appeared to over 500 people after His death, so eye witness testimony is strong! Look at the mathmatical probability of one man fulfilling the prophesies of the Messiah. There is so much more! So the REASON for believing is easy. It can’t not be true! All the reasoning facts point to it be the truth. So, what is your problem with Christianity? You can certainly say there have been evil people using Christianity as an excuse for their deplorable acts. But Christianity in and of itself denounces the things these people have done. Just because they sit in a church and call themself a Christian, doesn’t mean they are. You will know them by their fruits! Even Jesus said to those who said “remember when we did… “IN your name” and thus and so “in your name” and He said ” get away from me you who practice lawlessness, I NEVER knew you! There are absolutes in life! And following and making Jesus Lord would never look bad, violent, evil etc. ever. Show me one passage in the New Testament that promotes evil! It seems to me that the atheist on this post have not done their homework in knowing the Bible and what it teaches! Don’t let a bunch of lawless people who claim Christianity (past & present) derail you from finding out the absolute truth.
Just because stupid people USE religion as their EXCUSE for bad behavior doesn’t mean the religion is wrong
Just because stupid people USE smoking crack/shooting heroin/alchol abuse as their EXCUSE for bad behavior doesn’t mean that smoking crack/shooting heroin/alcohol abuse is wrong.
yup, you’re absolutely right.
Show me one passage in the New Testament that promotes evil!
I’ll leave that one to others who spend time answering that on a near daily basis.
suffice it to say, you need to read that thing a bit more closely.
That’s not a great analogy! Drugs alter the brain, and addiction/drug abuse, is still no excuse for bad behavior. There is no excuse for bad behavior! There is right and wrong and we are all accountable for our actions. Trying to EXCUSE wrong doesn’t make it O.K. it just tries to give reason to the wrong committed. And frankly, there is no good reason for wrong! People need to throw their excuses out the window, because they’re all rubish! Just because someone does something wrong to you doesn’t mean you have to do wrong back! That is just an EXCUSE for wrong. It still doesn’t make it o.k. Do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do! Like an excuse makes wrong o.k! I have read the the New Testament closely, and it does not promote evil! Again, give me a passage that does!
My question is why in Hell is “pie in the sky when you die” necessary for people to live? I would think your parents would have raised you with a background in ethics and morality. Honesty is a trait that can be learned at an early age, and make religion redundent.
Ethics and morality are important to be raised with! But who decides what’s right or wrong? Where is the glue that holds this toghether? Finding that answer, that one truth, is the glue! There is only one truth, not many! The question is, What is the truth? Jesus! I don’t have to follow Jesus to have a semblence of truth as I was given a conscience, hense excuses. Excuses try and help sooth the conscience. But again, it goes back to what are the absolutes? I know homosexuality is wrong. Can I stop people from practicing it? No. But I don’t have to say I agree with it! And I don’t see heterosexuals parading in the streets telling the world they have sex with people of the opposite sex! I could care less! Why does anyone have to even talk about what should be private? If you want to leave property, leave a will! The whole specials right thing is a sham. This would be just one example of who is to say what is right and wrong. Who decides on absolutes?
Drugs alter the brain, and addiction/drug abuse, is still no excuse for bad behavior.
so does religion, but that wasn’t my point.
my point was that religion is an enabler, no better than any drug, and often used to the same general end.
So what, exactly, makes it so special?
BTW, I like the large number of exclamation points you use, but i think, to truly indicate your level of emotion, you should start using ALL CAPS.
as to the passage thing, don’t make me read that horrid thing again; I’m sure someone will be along shortly to disabuse you of your notions of the purity of the new testament.
I know homosexuality is wrong
Who decides on absolutes?
why, obviously YOU do, dear.
Exactly! There are absolutes! And the one lawgiver who knows what’s best as He created it all! Out of love, He shares wisdom to save us from ourself. Promiscuity = disease.ETC… He didn’t want to see us suffer,so He gave us good rules to live by. Unfortunately, we want to do it our way and consequently suffer the results. Look at the world!
There are many enablers in life, but Christianity is not one of them. In fact, it takes away excuses. There will be no one to disabase me, because there is no where to quote from. It promotes love and tolerance. Not world wars, not murder, not shove this down peoples throats or else.We’re called to share the love and truth of Christ, but to shake the dust off our feet if the hearer has no interest. Not kill, or be mean, or hate. Why is the New Testament so horrid to you?
I have read the the New Testament closely, and it does not promote evil!
would you consider promoting cruelty and violence to others to be “promoting evil”?
yes or no?
Yes it would be promoting evil. Where does it promote cruelty and violence to others? The New Testament does not.
In fact, it takes away excuses.
does it now…
ever seen the Westboro Baptist Church? this is their website:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
what sin are they committing? you who have studied the new testament so thoroughly must surely know, right?
can you explain to me exactly how they don’t use religion as an excuse for their behavior?
takes away excuses? more like takes away critical thinking skills.
it’s more fun to not have to think about stuff that’s complicated though, right?
more soothing to listen to the softly spoken magic spells instead of the harsh voice of reason?
the Westboro baptists are just one small example. can you logically explain how using the bible as a reference guide hasn’t enabled preexisting biases like those found within the Westboro baptists?
Yes it would be promoting evil. Where does it promote cruelty and violence to others? The New Testament does not.
read and enjoy:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
you can gloss over a lot of things while you use the bible as an enabler, eh?
…or, if you prefer, you can read it set to a techno soundtrack:
if you are wondering, you can just as easily compare it to the Qu’ran (there are links on the site, and links to the “video” version too).
You sound pretty young, so my advice to you, Sally, would be to rely less on worshiping a book to TELL you what to do, and more on your own abilities to reason things out for yourself.
if as you correctly surmise, the application of violence and cruelty is not a good thing, you certainly didn’t garner that from the book you seem to value so highly.
I’d be willing to bet you either learned that from your parents (who learned from experience or from their parents), or by seeing how the application of violence and cruelty affects people directly yourself.
people are around you that have already experienced a lot of life, and you would find them, in general, to be a far better resource than a book, or a religion, for that matter.
Again, people reacting to their own emotion. Mary Magdelan was a prostitute. Jesus loved her. Love the sinner hate the sin. Heterosexuals are being incredibly lawless with their promiscuity. They are sinners just as the homosexuals are. We are called to love one another. You are using a human establishment to base your opinions. Certainly not the Word of God. Just because a group of people choose to go against what is truly taught doesn’t mean the real teaching is wrong. We are all sinners! God hates sin because of the damage it causes. He does not hate the sinner! Westbro baptist (I’m sure not all the parisioners) are seriuosly out of line. But again, show me in the New Testament where it promotes cruelty and violence to others. Not an organization, or another person. And, the Bible absolutely promotes critical thinking. It’s as deep as deep gets and doesn’t stop. And actually is quite reasoning if you would take the time to dig deep enough. The sin they are committing is an unnatural act not intended in the plan of God, just as the hetero in their promiscuity is not natural or intended in the plan of God. They may use “religion” as an excuse for their behavior, but it doesn’t make what God teaches wrong because THEY are confused. God is not confused.
good luck, Sally.
you’ll need it.
Just because a group of people choose to go against what is truly taught doesn’t mean the real teaching is wrong.
have you ever heard of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I think you’ll be hearing that a lot as you grow older, if you continue in your current line of thinking.
Hi, Sally! I’ve already called “satire” once on this thread, so I’ll take this one as sincere….
Why, right here, for one:
That’s only a declaration by Jesus that, at the Second Coming, he will order all of his followers to commit genocide upon everyone who does not surrender to his authority. Nice guy, that Jesus.
He also favored us with wisdom like this:
The burning of witches and of heretics rounded up in various Inquisitions was justified on the basis of that one.
There’s also the doctrine of Hell, which Jesus shrieked about incessantly in the Gospels. Here’s a taste:
And that’s only from the first few chapters of Matthew. There are many, many more ravings and threats from Jesus about his enemies suffering eternally in hell. The man seems to have been a wee bit unhinged.
Not according to Jesus:
Read Luke 19:27 up there again. A threat like “Follow me or be massacred” has somewhat of a throat-forcing ring to it, methinks.
No, that is a widely contested allegation. There is surprisingly little evidence (that is accepted by any but the most credulous) that Jesus is anything more than a mythical character.
No, myth. There is no evidence that these things ever happened.
No, that too is a myth. Not a single document authored by a contemporary “detractor” (or for that matter “follower”) of Jesus has ever been uncovered. The empty tomb story is a Christian fabrication dating from decades, if not centuries, after Easter Sunday is supposed to have happened. You have been lied to.
There is no evidence that any contemporary “follower” of Jesus “died for a ‘known’ lie.” Christian legends about early martyrs are, again, fabricated myths; they have been concocted to support exactly the defense mechanisms you are here to practice.
Both demonstrably false. The Bible contains prophecies that were not met, fake prophecies that were concocted after the fact to meet past circumstances, and factual allegations invented out of thin air to “fulfill” irrelevant prophecies (such as the famous case where a mistranslation of the Hebrew “almah” caused early Christian propagandists to invent the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin).
Can you name the Ten Commandments? And then explain why you picked that list of commandments rather than the one favored by other sects of Christianity–not to mention the several others mentioned in the Pentateuch?
Many of us regard the commandments against having other gods, graven images, taking the name of the deity in vain and ignoring the Sabbath to be… well, rather fascist-flavored. It is interesting to me that you answer a charge of fascism with the contention that we should all be expected to kowtow to your bloodthirsty, autocratic deity.
Here you start looking more like a parody… but more relevantly, this statement is nothing but evidence that you have once again gullibly accepted a religious myth as fact. Your lack of critical inquiry is not our problem.
We certainly can. And we can also show the Bible passages and widely accepted notions within Christian theology that make it clear that said “evil people” have at least as strong a basis in Christianity for their “deplorable acts” as you do for your criticisms of those acts.
Occasionally. At other times, it loudly endorses and encourages those things, as noted above.
Many of us have noticed that Christianity is not in fact limited–scripturally, theologically, or historically–to the ideas you smugly find acceptable.
I’ve quoted six. (And are you tacitly admitting that the Old Testament promotes evil? Interesting. In that light, I notice that Jesus claimed in Matthew 5:18 that he had not changed, and would not change, “one jot or one tittle” from the Old Testament law). Here are a few more evil New Testament passages, if you insist:
Again, we can quote you plenty more nastiness in the NT–there’s all of Paul’s bigotry, plus lots more Hell raving from Jesus in the Gospels and all over Revelation.
Physician, heal thyself. (Luke 4:23. :-)
oh, btw, just to be clear, and as a final addendum, when i say “enabling”, i don’t mean that in the sense you took it as, which was “excuse”, though I did go off on that tangent a bit, since you brought it up.
read this:
http://www.asktheinternettherapist.com/counselingarchive-enabler-and-codependency.asp
and it might be a bit clearer to you why i equate religion with being an enabler.
went to skeptics sight. I had to laugh! First of all, the writer adds his own commentary after the text. Secondly, Jesus is talking about hell, a very real place. His point is it would be better to be blind or handless than to go to hell. Hyperbol. You need to read the whole text and in it’s context to get understanding. Not take one line and build a theology out of it. And the judgement that comes upon man comes from God, not man! No where does it say we are to execute that judgement. Show me a text that says a human is to hurt another individual. It’s not there! As far as the old testament and stoning an adulterer etc. The New testament says there is a new way. The old shows what we are deserving of, the New shows the mercy and grace of God. It is an unfolding story of the revealing of God. He is showing us we can’t do it on our own, we’ll never be perfect,we can’t possibly do it all right, that the wages of sin are death. (in many ways) and that we need Him. Only then can we stand before a perfect, sinless God. The blood of Christ covers my sin so It is not seen and then I can stand before Him. He can not abide by sin. Even I, in my imperfect sinful state have a sense of justice! The murdering pedophile deserves justice! Burn! Imagine a perfect person and their sence of justice. Their sense of justice would surely be much greater than mine! The amazing thing is Grace! He offers it to anyone! So that our true justice, that we deserve, doesn’t fall upon us. Amazing!
hmm, getting back to the drug thing, it sure sounds like you’re high right now.
Even I, in my imperfect sinful state have a sense of justice! The murdering pedophile deserves justice! Burn!
oh yes, you’re well on your way to becoming an excellent member of the Westboro Baptist Church in a few years.
we’ll look for you in the next “God hates the world” music video they put out.
On the contrary. There is more archeological evidence to what my original post said than there is of Ceasar or many other historical people. Not to mention all the cities, leaders etc. The Bible is right on the money! And yes, there are documents from His detractors. If you can’t believe the mountain of evidence from historical documents of Jesus, then the less than mountainess documentation of other world leaders must mean they didn’t exist or do the things written about. Then no historical document can be believed, because there is more on Jesus than just about any historical leader!
Sally (#106):
As do you. We skeptics, however, do a substantially better job of dealing with the text honestly, rather than insisting on the rosiest reading that our imaginations (or dishonest televangelist heroes) can possibly dream up.
Again, you have no rational basis for believing this. You will not get far threatening atheists with your silly myths.
And our point is that only a disgusting monster (indeed, one might consider using the word “fascist”) would create a Hell of eternal torment, or sentence anyone to it. That you consider such an arrangement to be acceptable is a clear indication that your religious myth has severely deformed your conscience.
And, by the way, the word is “hyperbole.”
I have done so. However, your ignorant preconceptions are not “context.”
But because “God” is silent (a necessary consequence of nonexistence), the judgment in fact comes from human beings claiming to know the will of “God.” A human, that is, like you.
Liar. Luke 19:27–I quoted it in post #104 above.
John 15:6, which I also quoted, involves Jesus declaring that “men gather [Jesus-dissenters], and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” So you’re disproved twice over.
Hell is neither merciful nor gracious. Nor conscionable. Shame on you for countenancing it.
You are truly disgusting–and you demonstrate the legitimacy of PZ’s title for you (“Christo-Fascists”) in spades.
And you would propose what? for a murderering pedophile? No, I wouldn’t personally do the burning. However, he would certainly be deserving. And the no true scotsman was good.
But I covered that with what Jesus said… I never knew you. The article on enabling and excuses was good. The blame game is another good one! Anyway, I can see we sit on opposite sides of the fence, however not all fundamentalist promote hate nor do they agree with GW. I certainly don’t like alot of what’s going on. But I am growing very tired of the PC police! Free speech seems to only be for those whose ideology is not Christ centered. How sad is that?!? I’m all for we can agree to disagree.
Sally (#108), you have ignored all of my Biblical citations showing that your repeated generalizations about the wonders of the New Testament are lies. Should we consider those points conceded?
No. You know nothing of these matters. There is no archeological evidence of Jesus’ existence whatsoever.
Yes, the partisans who recorded the first written versions of the Gospels were capable of inserting details about actual cities and persons into them–just as Winston Groom and Robert Zemeckis were able to pepper Forrest Gump with real geographic locations (Alabama, Washington, Vietnam) and real-life persons (JFK, LBJ, Abbie Hoffman, etc). That does nothing to demonstrate that either Jesus or Forrest was anything other than a fictional character.
There is also the small matter that the Gospel writers got their names and dates wrong in several places, but that is somewhat secondary.
No, there are no documents from contemporary detractors. (I am one of “His” detractors, but my writings hardly constitute evidence that “He” was not a fictional character.)
That “mountain” only exists in your imagination. It is built from the lies of evangelists whose only purpose is to snooker the ignorant in order to arrogate to themselves money (that thing the “Bible is [indeed] right on the”) and power.
If you would like to be taken seriously, please cite any piece of the “mountain of evidence” you claim exists.
No. You are merely regurgitating baseless nonsense spoon-fed to you by mendacious liars. You do not even understand the broad outlines of the issue being discussed.
If you can’t believe the mountain of evidence from historical documents of Jesus
Poor deluded, stupid, Sally. I have decided to take pity on you, fool that you are, and reveal to you the one true triune god: Triglav. His three faces spit upon the farce that is your Jesus.
And as for mountains of evidence, Triglav is his own mountain of evidence, as well as the only god that has ever existed.
The blood of Christ covers my sin so It is not seen and then I can stand before Him
Your idiot god might be fooled by a costume of blood, but I assure you that the six eyes of Triglav will see through your disguise.
Imagine, a god who is blinded by blood. I’m guessing you’re considered the funny one in your family.
I hope you can continue to laugh when Triglav rips you in three so that each of his faces can eat their fill of your lardy brains.
The people helping in the end time wrath are not alive physically. It is not promoting harming another until the end and the world will be in such a shambles when this event happens because of the lawlessness of man. The saints with Jesus are already dead. So again, no promotion of hurting another while we are alive physically. God has warned those who want to go their own way. It seems to me they have chosen their plight. If I tell you don’t stick your hand in the fire or you’ll get burned and you do it anyway, whose choice is that? If I give you way out of that burning and you don’t take it, whose fault is that? Hmmmmm.
If I tell you don’t stick your hand in the fire or you’ll get burned and you do it anyway, whose choice is that? If I give you way out of that burning and you don’t take it, whose fault is that? Hmmmmm.
Blah, blah, blah. If your god was truly concerned with our salvation, he wouldn’t send such an important message via liars and fools such as yourself.
I mean, if he’s gonna spend all day chit-chatting with a disgusting thief like Kent Hovind, he sure as hell could spend a few seconds to talk directly to the six billion people you claim he loves.
But by all means; keep telling yourself that you’ve been ‘chosen’ to witness god’s special message to us. Whatever lets you sleep at night, I guess.
Sally (#110):
As a human being, I propose incarceration. That you advocate everlasting torture instead is an indication of the depths of degeneracy your religion has led you to.
But Luke 19:27 makes clear that a “good servant” like yourself will be doing the “slay”ing. And (presuming the use of “man” is not gender-specific) John 15:6 says that you will in fact be doing the “cast[ing] into the fire.” Don’t sell yourself short as an endabler of (indeed, participant in) genocidal violence.
Again, you are disgusting. What more can be said about an ideology that indoctrinates its followers to believe that human beings deserve eternal torment?
And I have documented that the Jesus character in the Gospels is fervently with you (indeed, has led you) in your descent into infinite-torture madness. Claiming that you are merely aiding and abetting a fellow (albeit very possibly fictional) reprobate is hardly a defense.
What in the hell are you talking about? Who do you think is infringing on your right to free speech? What authority is attempting to silence you? Or are you paranoid enough to think that ordinary criticism of the disgusting dogma you are spouting is a violation of your human rights?
Quite a bit.
Subscribe to biblical archeology. There are many articles on the many discoveries. Read all the back issues too. The very few errors in no way have changed the context in the text. Amazing that a text written over thousands of years by numerous authors is so cohesive! Wow! Explain that.
He already came down once and we nailed Him to a cross. I think that history would definately repeat itself and any miracle He would perform to prove His diety would be called magic or alien or………. Same result as before
Not my decision as to who goes where.
Sally,
Could you please provide a detailed bibliography for the mountain of evidence you mentioned earlier? I don’t care about anything else you have to say here. All I want is a list of the publications that support your position. If there is so much archaeological evidence for Christianity, surely it has been published.
I want details. What are the non-biblical eyewitness reports that support Christianity?
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that you will ignore this, or respond with more gibberish.
Cohesive? Sally you stupid half-wit; you just agreed that it wasn’t cohesive when you compared the Old Testament to the New. (Of course, you also demonstrated in that post that you haven’t a fucking clue what’s actually in the bible. Rieux schooled you.)
So far, all you’ve done is wax retarded about your view of god, and you haven’t even the sense to support your claims with bible quotes.
I’m rapidly losing what little patience I have left with morons like you. Isn’t there a Sunday school full of children you can terrorise somewhere and leave us to our atheism? Perhaps there are some prescription drugs you can justify abusing?
I mean, if we offer you the chance to actually think and you consistently refuse to take it, then whose fault is that? Hmmmmmmmm.
ETERNAL TORMENT. A horrible place! All the more reason to take seriously your ultimate destination. How many people never really diligently seek the truth?
The question really isn’t why does God send anyone to hell? It’s why would He save any us?!?
Sally (#113), who I presume is responding to me:
Morally irrelevant (and obtuse) evasion. There is nothing whatsoever in any of the passages I have quoted to support the notion that the “good servants” (Luke 19:27) and “men” (John 15:6) are “not alive physically.” And even if that were true, it is yet again an example of your moral degeneracy that you consider the genocide described in those passages to be excusable because the world “will be in such a shambles … because of the lawlessness of man.” Indeed, religious fanatics have been declaring that just such a “shambles” exists right now for centuries.
This is likewise (1) utterly unsupported in the text and (2) subject to an irrelevant new qualification that you are desperately and dishonestly adding after the fact.
Regardless of your current excuses, those passages from the New Testament do indeed “say to kill people” and “promote evil,” so your challenges (from post #86, among others) have been answered. There is far more evil in both Testaments than you can bring yourself to look at honestly.
Extortion (“Follow my orders or BURN!”) is immoral, Sally. As is torturing people infinitely for finite crimes. As is supporting the everlasting torture of human beings. You should be ashamed of yourself–though I hold out little hope that you will ever see out from under the blinders of the parasitic religious meme you are currently hosting in order to recognize that.
The god you describe, and apparently worship, is unspeakably evil, Sally. It does not deserve your obeisance, and it will certainly never get mine.
Colugo,
Sorry if he’s a hero of yours, but FDR was a fascist. The crimes of other presidents do not change this fact. He pulled off the greatest power-grab by any president since Lincoln, and committed crimes against citizens that you’d have to all the way back to Andrew Jackson before you could find a more egregious example.
-jcr
On the contrary. It is very cohesive. As I stated it is a unfolding revealing of who God is. He requires justice (Old Testament) but offers mercy (New Testament) Is name calling really necessary? Throughout the old He alludes to the new, and throughout the old He promises the new. All of which happens. As far as quoting text what do you want me to quote? Turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Discipline yourself for the purpous of Godliness. Read it, with an open mind, with facts and reasoning and all the evidence before you. It’s pretty plain to see. Christianity is not what you people have been posting about!
“wantonly tossing around terms”
Tyler,
I use the term quite precisely. FDR was the first fascist president of the United States, and while others after him have also increased the encroachment of the government on our liberty, he was the one who built the concentration camps. (And yes, they were called concentration camps, until the term became politically incorrect as we learned what the Germans were doing in their concentration camps.)
If you want to make a case that FDR wasn’t a fascist, try telling it to Korematsu’s family. For an encore, go tell the Cherokees what a great man Andrew Jackson was.
-jcr
Sally (#116-17, 119):
But I am interested in honest, competent scholarship from investigators who are not merely attempting to concoct a scaffolding for their (and your) religious myths. A periodical whose fundamental purpose is to grind an axe for a certain flavor of irrationality has no place in any discussion premised on intellectual integrity.
And then there’s reality. I prefer the latter.
Like so much else in your posts here, that “cohesion” is a figment of your imagination.
Irrelevant. That is no excuse for the multiple moral abominations that we critics have cited (and you have enthusiastically supported) in this thread.
That was not the answer given to Thomas. Which makes clear that skeptics are given the opportunity to test Christianity’s claims only when those skeptics (and their tests) are characters in a fictional story. In real life, nonexistent entities are not capable of submitting themselves for tests.
No, but you are cheering on the degenerate policies of genocide and eternal torment that your religion has indoctrinated you to accept. That makes you morally complicit. I wish you were capable of feeling shame for that.
Clearly you, for one. I suspect there are several million others (not only Christians, of course) in the same boat as you in that respect.
“The question[s]” you posed were whether the New Testament advocated killing or evil. As I have demonstrated, it clearly does.
That you are capable of evading the uncomfortable questions raised by your myths is unfortunate, but it is not strictly relevant.
” Free speech seems to only be for those whose ideology is not Christ centered. ”
Sally,
Who, pray tell, has made any effort to shut you up? Your freedom of speech does not include a right to be spared from criticism or ridicule. If anyone tried to use force to shut you prosleytutes up, I would fight for your right to make asses of yourselves as you see fit.
Now, perhaps your belief in your superstitions is so tenuous that criticism scares the crap out of you, but that’s not censorship. If you can’t keep spewing your nonsense in the face of rational criticism, that’s nobody’s problem but your own.
-jcr
Rieux,It’s not about “following orders” it’s about entering into a relationship with your creator. Here’s how to do it, if not, you will live eternally without God. (hell) a life without God restraining evil, since you chose not to have a relationship with Him, you chose hell. It has been described as torment, hot,etc… Seems to me you rejected the offer to be with Him. So you get to be without. Without God = hell. You wanted to be without God. No different than you have requirements for the people you let into your life. However, our decision to or not to enter into that relationship has eternal consequeces, and He is letting you know that a place with God is quite horrible. He really doesn’t want that for you. Your choice!
“He already came down once and we nailed Him to a cross.”
In the words of Tonto, in the classic joke: “What do you mean ‘we’, paleface?”
Are you claiming to be over 2007 years old, and to have participated in a murder?
I had nothing to do with the brutality of the Roman occupation of Judea, so go heap your abuse on Ceasar’s ghost if you must, but leave me out of it.
-jcr
Jesus Freak Sally makes it too easy, “Show me one passage in the New Testament that promotes evil! It seems to me that the atheist on this post have not done their homework in knowing the Bible and what it teaches!”
Just read Revelations verse 2. Jesus is going to kill Jezebel’s children because he doesn’t like her life-style.
Sally is either a put-on, or too ignorant for words. But that is usually the case with bible thumpers: they do not know much about anything, including their “holy” book.
It is tempting to say that bible is a pack of lies(objectively it is), but it is more psychotic delusions written down by men, not women. Why did gawd exclude half of humans from his divine information? Clearly the texts are self-serving for a bunch of misogynist men.
Biblical archeology is a secular competant forum where new discovories are recorded for those interested. Most of the writers are not Christians and actually are trying to debunk Christianity through their discoveries. So far no good. They keep uncovering the cities or evidence of kings named in the Bible and are finding continuously that it is an extremely accurate historical document. In post 126, a place without God would be horrible. Also, I would be cheering on that the people sent to a place without God were not forced against their will to be with God.
Sally (#122, 126):
Yes, I recognize that you are capable of telling a story that you think represents the entire Bible, while in the process utterly ignoring any portion of the work you have left out or any element of the text that does not fit with your reading.
But, for the umpteenth time, your imagination is not evidence. The fact that you (very likely with the aid of Josh McDowell, Hank Hanegraaff and/or similar dishonest myth salesmen) have convinced yourself that the Bible conforms to your entirely partisan interpretation means nothing to people who do not accept your dogmas.
But everlasting torment is not justice, and extortion is not mercy.
A spade ought to be called a spade, and a reprobate a reprobate, yes. You favor the eternal torment of human beings. There are names for that variety of moral position, and they are not nice ones.
I don’t “want” you to quote anything. I would like you to see that your view of the Bible, and of Christianity, is hopelessly blinkered. You appear to be incapable of honestly testing the viability of either–though I would be happy to be proved wrong on that point.
That’s what I have done. When that exercise is performed honestly, skepticism is where it leads.
But we are (or at least I am) interested in the Christianity of the Bible, not the Christianity of your oft-cited imagination. The latter has little relevance in the world at large.
I don’t care about your nonsensical and dishonest distillation of the Bible. Luke 19:27, which I quoted in post #104 above, is an order, Sally. It is an order (that Jesus declares he will give) to you. An order to commit genocide on all non-Christians. That is entirely plain in the text. I recognize that you want–perhaps need–to ignore the whole issue, because it conflicts with your (quite “facts and reasoning”-free) notions about the consistent message of the Bible, and cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable. But Luke 19:27 (and the many other abominable doctrines in the Bible) will not go away just because you avert your eyes. We dissenters have no obligation to go along with your dishonesty.
That system would be extortion, and as such it would be evil. Evading that point does not rebut it.
No, there was no “offer” because all rational indications are that there is no “Him.” Again, I ask you to please stop citing your imagination as evidence.
Did you notice that your second sentence here directly contradicts your first?
Indeed, my decisions about associating with certain people (for example, advocates of eternal torture) do not have “eternal consequences,” which means that those decisions are fundamentally different than the decision that, according to your mythology, your God makes. The latter decision results in the eternal torture of human beings, making that God an unspeakable monster–and you a reprobate for accepting this system as moral.
Extortion is wrong, Sally. Even when you want to go along with it.
Sally (#129):
Right. Meanwhile, in the real world, archeology has torn the Bible’s “history” to shreds, despite a few sects’ dogged insistence that their silly dogmas constitute archeological evidence.
Then we understand one another: you are in favor of eternal torment for certain human beings who have committed finite offenses against an invisible deity.
I will repeat: that is disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
BTW, Sally.. Like many superstitious people, your familiarity with your own mythology is far from comprehensive.
The idea of eternal torment isn’t in the book, sunshine. Go read revelations, and note that your book says that heathens like me will be “cast into the lake of fire” and “consumed”. No eternal torment story there, that’s just a later christian plagiarism of the greek mythology of hades.
Likewise, the idea that people go right to heaven or hell when they die doesn’t gybe with the text. Revelations again, says that the dead are made to rise at the end, not that they go and hang out in heaven or hell in the meantime.
For one who presumes to lecture others on what superstitions they should obey, you’re a tad ill-equipped, aren’t you?
BTW, just for own good, you’d better knock it off with this newfangled mediterranean hogwash before Thor smites you with a bolt from Mjolnir. The Aesir aren’t too happy with competition for prayers and sacrifices. Maybe Father Odin will forgive you if you ask real nice.
-jcr
benarda, The Bible does not promote for people to kill. So far no one has shown me where Jesus calls for Christians to do evil. Is it evil to not make someone do what they don’t want to? Because people will “burn” eternally, by their choice, will I be evil in escorting them to where they chose to go? There are lots of verse 2’s in Revelation. I need to see the full context of the passage, but again, it still wouldn’t show where Christians have been called to do evil. We’re talking about all these so called Christians who have murdered “in the name of Christ” It just isn’t there! Jesus freak Sally
John C. Randolph (132):
Huh?
Among several others.
I’ll concede that there are verses that arguably conflict with these regarding the eternalness of the punishment–fancy that, the Bible contradicts itself–but it’s hardly accurate to say that “[t]he idea of eternal torment isn’t in the book.”
To address just one of the more comical claims brought up in this back and forth:
Evidence for Caesar’s historicity and Jesus’ is actually a marvellously illustrative contrast. There are many clearly contemporary accounts of Caesar’s life with excellent provenance, including many by political and military opponents, some of them critical, including those of Catullus, Cicero, and Sallust. Many of them are quite detailed. Some of Caesar’s own writings even survive, and though maybe you could argue they wouldn’t be worth much in isolation, as they’re generally consistent with other contemporary accounts, it all adds up to pretty detailed and well corroborated picture of the historical figure.
In contrast, there are simply no contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life. None whatsoever. The Testimonium Flavianum has been considered an obvious forgery for centuries, now, and the resurrection literature Christians now revere, apart from being hopelessly contradictory even on such basic facts as even his ancestry, doesn’t even date to his time. To say it isn’t particularly useful as evidence is a polite understatement. Putting it more clearly: by reasonable standards of historiography, and specifically against what we have for Caesar, the Christian sources are a bad joke–a hazy, mangled mishmash of bizarre and contradictory claims.
Speaking of which, note also the contrast in the claims made about the two figures. Caesar: was born, ruled Rome, fought wars, got declared dictator, died… a likely enough story, though there’s some amusing bits, I hear, in his own justifications for his military campaigns. Plus ca change. Politics is as politics does. Anyway, to the point: you could take those broad outlines and apply them to any number of political figures over the last several millenia; they’d fit, well enough. Churchill or Hitler, to pick two, depending, a bit, on how you feel about Caesar, I guess. So he’s not quite what you’d call extraordinary, or unlikely, in the long view.
Jesus in contrast: born of a virgin, fathered by a god, raised men from the dead, crucified, rose again from the dead… Interesting, all that… On the bright side, I guess, no one is exactly claiming he could fly. Or, at least, not that he did so regularly…
Like Caesar, however, I suppose, you could point out that Jesus has his peers, too. Except that the similar lives to Jesus’ are those of Mithras and Osiris, figures widely understood to be legendary.
There’s an old staple of reasoning: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In Jesus’ case, and especially as regards claims he was running around doing CPR on mouldering corpses and somehow making it work, we could politely ask: oh, well, how about any serious evidence? Any at all? Hmm? Please? Pretty please? Like, say, the detailed, glowing and astronished contemporary accounts by the noted historians and thinkers of the day…
Which is to say: the accounts which so conspicuously don’t exist.
The reality about the Jesus? Well, the merely sane reading this forum already know this but here it is anyway: no one knows much at all. It’s generally thought it’s more likely than not, for what little that’s worth, that there was a historical figure who served as a nucleus for the legends that later developed, but it’s also pretty clear (a) we know almost nothing reliably about this figure, now, and (b) there’s certainly no reason whatsoever to expect there was anything much remarkable about him. The miraculous claims, again, aren’t supported by any real evidence, let alone sufficient evidence. I’d say the best guess is: he was an itinerant preacher, later mythologized and exaggerated and syncretized with the known stable of birth-death-rebirth gods previously mentioned…
But even that, that’s just a guess, now…
And again, that all refers to the existence of a historical figure serving as a nucleus for the legends. Anyone actually claiming there’s reliable archaeological evidence for the glowing Christian miracle healer version of the figure is just a nut. It’s roughly as honest to claim we’ve archaeological evidence Kali, Shiva, Paul Bunyan and the tooth fairy are literal historical figures, and variously created the universe, rode a big blue ox, and put coins under children’s pillows.
John C. Randolph, you mentioned our two greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln and FDR, who also happen to be among the top villains in the paleolibertarian worldview.
The real American fascists of that era were figures like Huey Long, Charles Lindbergh, Charles Coughlin, Henry Ford, and Lawrence Dennis.
The term “fascist” has been used too broadly too often. Because of that, while it is true that the concept of “Islamic Fascism” and similar formulations are not simply wartime administration propaganda but seriously discussed by some atheist writers and other intellectuals, and connections between Islamic extremists and fascists (in the strict sense) are well documented (for example, google “Haj Amin al-Husseini”), the addition of the term “fascism” introduces an unnecessary historical controversy. (Even more so in books like Chris Hedges’ ‘American Fascists’ and Jonah Goldberg’s ‘Liberal Fascism.’) The ongoing debates about the War on Terror, Islamic reform, religious fanaticism, civilizational reconciliation and so on would be better served by a more generic term like “Islamism” or “Islamic totalitarianism.”
First off:
My username is Donalbain. Not Donal. Not Donald. Not Donal Bain. Donalbain. Get thee to a theatre!
Now I will address the points raised in response to my question before Sally stole all the attention.
1) Homosexuality: An isolated murder done by Christians is VASTLY different to a nationwide, state (or quasi-state) backed system of oppression as practiced by Islamic countries. If you were a homosexual, where would feel safer to come out? The USA and the UK or Iran and Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
[And Sally, the reason you dont see straight parades is because straights have never been a persecuted minority. Pride parades (such as St Paddy’s Day, Gay Pride and the like) tend to be the preserve of people who have been put down in the past and are now getting and celebrating a sense of liberation. And if you think people should shut up about who they sleep with, I suppose you are against those massive ceremonies that people hold, where one person puts on a thousand pound dress and declares, in front of witness and on public record, that she will only sleep with a specific person? And I suppose you hate it when people refer to their “wife”. Or when they introduce you to their “husband”.]
Education: Christian Exodus are not a threat to anyone. Not only are they a tiny, small fringe of kooks, but all they want to do is essentially run off and hide from the world. That is very different from the Taliban and their friends who actually want to take over parts of the world and force others to obey their evil laws.
Rieux,
The claim that most christians make about revelations is that it’s the last word, so to speak, superseding what the earlier parts say, since god’s appearance to St. John on his hallucinogenic holiday happens after the gospels are supposed to have been spewed into the verbal tradition.
What I see there is statements that while the fire is ostensibly eternal, those people and metaphors cast into it are consumed. IE, destroyed.
In any case, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
-jcr
Sally (#133):
Where do you get off posting such blatant lies? I have directly proven you wrong on both of these counts. I quoted two passages (Luke 19:27 and John 15:6) that specifically “promote” homicide by Christians–and now that you’ve widened it out to “the Bible,” there are thousands of additional God-sanctioned homicides I can cite for you. Then, I quoted six more passages promoting Hell; a militant “bring a sword; abandon your family” cult; the beating of slaves; and the abandonment of the poor in favor of Jesus’ megalomania. Your only response has been to fabricate some irrelevant and baseless nonsense about some of the killers in the first passage or two being “not alive physically.”
You can–and I’m sure you will–pretend that (1) I never quoted any such thing and (2) indeed, no such Biblical material exists. But you can keep your lies to yourself, thanks.
If that involves torturing them eternally, then yes, blitheringly obviously, that is evil.
Your dishonesty is stunning. You know perfectly well that no one has chosen to burn eternally. Many nonbelievers have made certain choices that you irrationally believe will lead to our infinite torment, but you are well aware that we do not believe that. (More turn-or-burn yammering from you fails to sway us, as it would any rational person.)
What we have chosen is a rational, honest life. To torture us on that basis is unconscionable.
Then it appears that there can be no passage, even in theory, that you would accept as a Biblical call for Christians to do evil. Your conviction is based on nothing other than your impenetrable dogma.
Why do you pose as someone interested in an “open-minded” examination?
Again, you lie. I have quoted two statements attributed to Jesus that call for mass murder in his name. Whether you like it or not, those passages do exist.
John (#138):
Well, that’s one way to resolve a perceived contradiction, sure–but it’s hardly the only way. And I’m not convinced that it’s “most Christians,” but that’s probably not worth pursuing.
Indeed.
And on that note: it’s time for me to hit the sack. If our friend Sally returns to dazzle us with her knack for
dogma regurgitationBiblical interpretation, is there anyone I can “tag in” for this team bout?” Abraham Lincoln and FDR, who also happen to be among the top villains”
I wouldn’t consider Lincoln a “top villain”, and I doubt that most other Libertarians would, either. I think he meant well, on the whole, but I can certainly fault his methods in many specifics.
His record is a mixed bag: he arguably ended slavery, although by all indications he did so without meaning to, and he established the supremacy of the federal government by force of arms, which has had some rather dire consequences. It’s been good for civil rights in some instances, and bad for civil rights in others, such as my state’s powerlessness to protect our cancer patients from federal harassment despite our having voted to legalize medical marijuana use.
FDR, on the other hand, is very clear-cut. He committed crimes against innocent US citizens on a scale that would make GWB swoon.
“in the paleolibertarian worldview.”
I’m not familiar with your neologism, here. What do you define as a “paleolibertarian”?
-jcr
colugo, “a favorable view of what they tend to characterize as the anti-imperialist resistance aspects of militant Islamists. Of course this does not constitute an endorsement of the theology of these groups.”
That is not the case of Israel’s supporters, overwhelmingly endorse its theology. In Germany during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Bush said the Israel had “the right to defend itself”. Congress voted a resolution saying that it supported Israel’s “right to defend itself”. Ole John Bolton said Israel acted in “self-defense”. It is always the same mantra. They don’t even try to make an argument anymore. It is understood that Israel is always right.
In addition, towards the end of the invasion, Bush supplied Israel with “precision” bombs and cluster bombs. Direct support for war crimes.
“The Lebanon War of 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah lasted 34 days, and according to veteran war correspondent Scott Anderson, author of Double Blind, was noteworthy for its “sheer senselessness.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/63908/
But sheer senselessness has never deterred Bush and congress.
Sally #133:
Remember your post #86? Response #104?
Hm. Dishonest, forgetful or stupid?
#61, #142
Bernarda, about 700 people have been killed in the war against Hisbollah (wich was fought after an one sided Israeli retreat from southern Lebanon, followed by five years of bombardment by Hisbollah rockest without an Israeli reaction), an unaccounted number of them were Hisbilloah combatants. What about traffic deaths in this case? Or the natural risks that come with being a soldier, militiamen or racketeer (to avoid the nasty words Quisling, collaborationist or traitor – Hisbollah supported the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, and is still in Syrian pay)?
More than 2000 people were killed in 9-11, almost all of them innocent civilians. I smell a double standard.
It is, but it doesn’t rank near the top on the world scale of clear and present dangers, in my opinion. Nobody is supporting those goons, for crying out loud; what many are saying, correctly, is that wingnuts have engaged in a deliberate fear-mongering campaign seeking to inflate the actual danger for crass political purposes.
Once again, the intellectual bankruptcy shows through, pretending to be the enlightened one. Your ignorance of REAL Christian beliefs is laughable and pitiful. As usual, 2 plus 2 equals whatever you want it to. Since you have no foundation to base your right/wrong, good/evil comparisons on, moral relativism is the only foundation you can base your left-wing lunatic assertions.
More proof that some hippies never grew up and are emotionally and mentally stunted and unfortunately, these are the sad excuses in academe teaching our kids.
There is a term for your ilk – neocommunist.
Hey Sally, still waiting on you to provide a list of books, articles or whatever. You said you had mountains of evidence for Christianity. Could you please please please get around to telling me which books and articles to read? I’m an atheist. So are many of the other folks around here. Don’t you have a moral duty to provide us with the names of the books and articles you find so persuasive?
“If you take all the good stuff that Christians do, and compare it with all the bad stuff everyone else does, the Christians look like saints.”
I’ve noticed that several recent comments have shifted in number since I logged off–so that when I referred, above, to Sally’s comment #119, that comment (which the forum says she posted on 10/12/07 at 3:28 AM) is now listed as #120. Everything thereafter appears to have shifted by one.
My (minimally educated) guess is that the SciBlogs software dragged its feet putting up cosimovecchio’s 10/12/07 3:20 AM comment, currently at #118, until many minutes after 3:20. Then, when it finally went up, that comment pushed all of the later-submitted but earlier-posted comments down one number.
Does this seem a likely guess? If so, isn’t it a rather stupid bug in the comment system?
Malc (#147):
Whom are you referring to? PZ? One or more of the atheist commenters on this thread? Do you have any coherent idea?
And your resort to the No True Scotsman fallacy is risible.
Demonstrably false–but regardless, the personal ethics of every single atheist I know (and most Christians as well) are a tremendous improvement over the dictates of the bloodthirsty, megalomaniacal tyrant that you apparently take to be your moral “foundation.” Even if (contrary to fact) we were all relativists, that would be a vast improvement over slavishly following the decrees of a genocidal monster.
Oh, really? I wonder if we should call this “paleocommunism,” then:
Oddly enough, I doubt you’ll be able to find evidence that PZ or a single atheist commenter here reveres any communist text the way you do the communist passages above.
Rieux, #45:
True enough. It’s just that I noticed PZ’s list of “regulars” (which I won’t repeat here), and think Cal Thomas’s name needs to be added to it. So each time PZ talks about Coulter, et al, I think the name Cal Thomas also needs to be there.
It’s pretty sad when “disgusting” is “typical.” It’s like working at a waste-water treatment plant; you know what’s coming down the pipe every day, but it still makes you sick to your stomach. That’s Coulter/Thomas for ya.
JCR:
Paleolibertarianism: LewRockwell.com, Old Right libertarianism, isolationism, Paul Craig Roberts, Justin Raimondo
FDR made a grievous error with the interment of Japanese-Americans, for which the US government has apologized and paid reparations for. When a president makes a mistake, many people can suffer. But it’s still not sufficient to make FDR a fascist, not even close. Unless “fascist” is a near-generic epithet.
Steve LaBonne: “Nobody is supporting those goons, for crying out loud”
Some are – in regard to specific political activities (so-called anti-imperialist resistance) but not in all aspects obviously (particularly theology), and I have provided examples of such and I could have cited a number of others, including Michel Foucault’s favorable impression of the Iranian revolution.
http://tinyurl.com/8k7uy
I cited only public figures but this offering is still noteworthy:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-22.htm
Bernarda, I’m curious: what is your position on the serial assassinations of Hariri and other Lebanese politicians and journalists opposed to Syrian domination? How about the situation in Darfur? (Description, causes, policy prescription) The 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires?
The Iranian Revolution was one of those monumental fights of evil against evil…
Now on to post 86:
Cited above at length.
Yes, that is in there, too. One of the contradictions in the Bible.
Sometimes.
(Just like Islam, BTW.)
Sometimes.
Fact: Luke Skywalker walked Tatooine.
Fact: Han Solo shot Greedo first.
Nowhere is it said that Luke Skywalker didn’t destroy the Death Star.
And? So is Master Yoda’s. That’s normal.
There are plenty of false prophecies in it. I’ll link to the list when I’ll get home. Archeologically, let me mention the Flood and the age of the Earth. Come on, we have written records older than 4004 BC.
And if we followed the Eightfold Path… Or simply the Force.
How many billions witnessed the explosion of the Death Star?
Some are not fulfilled. Why do you think there are still Jews?
Translation: you want it to be true.
Done over and over again, above.
Haven’t you noticed that almost everyone here is an atheist?
You talk like someone who has never noticed that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other.
Lawless? Absolute truth? Thank you very much, I’m a scientist. I try to figure out reality. Your supposed truth is hanging in the air; it’s not even testable.
The Iranian Revolution was one of those monumental fights of evil against evil…
Now on to post 86:
Cited above at length.
Yes, that is in there, too. One of the contradictions in the Bible.
Sometimes.
(Just like Islam, BTW.)
Sometimes.
Fact: Luke Skywalker walked Tatooine.
Fact: Han Solo shot Greedo first.
Nowhere is it said that Luke Skywalker didn’t destroy the Death Star.
And? So is Master Yoda’s. That’s normal.
There are plenty of false prophecies in it. I’ll link to the list when I’ll get home. Archeologically, let me mention the Flood and the age of the Earth. Come on, we have written records older than 4004 BC.
And if we followed the Eightfold Path… Or simply the Force.
How many billions witnessed the explosion of the Death Star?
Some are not fulfilled. Why do you think there are still Jews?
Translation: you want it to be true.
Done over and over again, above.
Haven’t you noticed that almost everyone here is an atheist?
You talk like someone who has never noticed that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other.
Lawless? Absolute truth? Thank you very much, I’m a scientist. I try to figure out reality. Your supposed truth is hanging in the air; it’s not even testable.
Or simply the Force.
or even more simply, the golden rule.
which, btw, did not come from the wholly babble, and is entirely secular in nature and application.
I would invite Sally, as an exercise, to check out entirely secular philosophies like naturalism:
http://www.naturalism.org/
and compare/contrast to the “rules” she thinks are entirely created and maintained only within her religion.
donaldbain:
Christian Exodus are not a threat to anyone. Not only are they a tiny, small fringe of kooks, but all they want to do is essentially run off and hide from the world.
uh, suggest you re-read their mission statement there, boyo.
their goal is to basically overwhelm a given area of the united states so that they can then “democratically” change the governance and laws in that area, to ones that better suit their professed beliefs (uh, that’s called creating a theocracy, moron).
I’m sure that if they managed to actually get that far, they’d be talking about secession, which you’d probably be all for, right? I mean, they’re just trying to hide from the world, right? so… how much of YOUR world are you willing to give them to hide in, eh?
pull your head out of your ass, and stop making apologies for things you haven’t even bothered to examine.
there is well organized xian resistance, in politics, in law, and in vigilante groups to a great many things most would consider to issues covered by our own constitution.
that you choose to keep your head up your ass and refuse to see it is YOUR problem, only suggests that you might have missed the meaning of this, if you ever in fact saw it before:
Promised link to long list of failed Biblical prophecies and contradictions in the Bible.
Ichthyic, where did you get that version with the trade unionists from? Niemöller mentioned the Catholics instead, it was about shouting, not “speaking out”, and it had “When they came” at the beginning of each iteration, not “first/then they came”.
Promised link to long list of failed Biblical prophecies and contradictions in the Bible.
Ichthyic, where did you get that version with the trade unionists from? Niemöller mentioned the Catholics instead, it was about shouting, not “speaking out”, and it had “When they came” at the beginning of each iteration, not “first/then they came”.
Here’s Wikiquote on Niemöller, FWIW.
Ichthyic, where did you get that version with the trade unionists from? Niemöller mentioned the Catholics instead, it was about shouting, not “speaking out”, and it had “When they came” at the beginning of each iteration, not “first/then they came”.
beats me, had it sitting around for a while now (note the similarity to one of the other “versions” listed in the wiki cite).
thanks for finding the original cite, Rieux.
Interesting, because I know another version.
My rather literal translation:
Of course, the English language somehow manages to do almost entirely without the word “fetch”, which is very common in German, so I’m not nitpicking about that part, but the other differences are still obvious.
Interesting, because I know another version.
My rather literal translation:
Of course, the English language somehow manages to do almost entirely without the word “fetch”, which is very common in German, so I’m not nitpicking about that part, but the other differences are still obvious.
Aha, blockquote messes the first paragraph up. Strange, because it’s actually three paragraphs in each case.
More literal translation for the 2nd-to-last line: “nobody existed anymore”.
Aha, blockquote messes the first paragraph up. Strange, because it’s actually three paragraphs in each case.
More literal translation for the 2nd-to-last line: “nobody existed anymore”.
Hey Malc…
Shoot anyone in the face lately?
Get caught with your bindings too tight and one too many scuba suits on?
Stick with your buddies at Town Hall or LGF. There’s just as ignorant and deluded as you.
I’m only relying on the wiki article linked to by Rieux, but according the the original speech posted in the wiki article, he didn’t mention the Catholics.
it appears not to be a translation issue, but one of which speech did he actually give. OTOH, evidently he himself often changed the phrases in the speech as he went from place to place:
so it’s quite probable that both versions are accurate, but were based on different speeches given at a different time/place.
it’s pretty much nitpicking though, as the central theme certainly does not change, regardless of which “minority” groups are utilized to express it.
Of course, the English language somehow manages to do almost entirely without the word “fetch”
not at all, actually, it’s just that in english (american), the usage is more commonly applied to dogs fetching sticks.
“Fetch the stick, boy!”
which might be one reason why it is more rarely used in the context of “getting something”, though it still is used informally occasionally:
“Let me fetch that for you.”
less common is the usage in case of an informal request:
“Fetch that for me, would you Jenkins?”
again, probably because it is associated with some sort of social subservience.
for humans getting things for other humans, we usually just use the word “get”, though.
“Let me get that for you.”
as to the history of the actual usage of the word in American english, haven’t a clue. I’m sure somebody out there has published a paper on it though.
er, not that this isn’t totally offtopic or anything.
Ahhh yes. The obligatory reference to the Holocaust. Because, after all, look at all the Christian death camps that have been set up all over.
Seriously, this is just getting either very silly or very depressingly stupid. I cant decide which.
Neither of these is the case in German. That’s what I mean. :-)
Certainly.
Neither of these is the case in German. That’s what I mean. :-)
Certainly.
Seriously, this is just getting either very silly or very depressingly stupid. I cant decide which.
there’s a reason for that, but I doubt you’ll be able to figure it out.
*shrug*
#165: How has Christianity historically treated heretics?
It is probably because it is both very silly and depressingly stupid.