New Federal Hate Crime Law - Page 4

I don't believe either one of you has defined Godlessness. Your arguments are going nowhere fast as you don't appear to have the same definition of the terms you are arguing about.

Also, "godlessness" or most any other religion does not lead to genocide, but it can lend to it. Genocide, in the modern era is usually more politically motivated than anything else.

That's as much as I read of that post; you're just not paying attention to what I've said.

No, and no. Here, let me bring you back to what I've written -- again, and again and again.


This is simply another case of misrepresenting what was said (by gross oversimplification) and then attacking that misrepresentation.

This is cowardice.

You have used the word 'godless', repeatedly.

I take it that you mean 'without the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God.'

Now that I have defined my understanding of what you meant by 'godless', I will repeat what I posted, and I will expect you to have the courage to respond to it.

Genocide was not invented with the Soviet Revolution in 1917. It did not begin with the publication of 'Das Kapital' in 1867. It did not begin with the publication of 'On the Origin of Species' in 1857. It did not begin with the publication of 'Critique of Practical Reason' in 1788.

Why have you chosen to ignore all the atrocities that occurred before these dates? What is wrong with them? Why do they not count?

Either Christianity prevents people from committing genocide, and always has, or it does not, and never has.

The Spanish and the Portuguese arrived in the New World before the birth of Immanuel Kant. The men and women who massacred millions in Southern Africa and in the Americas prayed before they went about their work. Christian people continue to commit atrocities right to the present day.

Either Christianity prevents people from committing genocide or it does not.

If it does not, you cannot put any blame on the Enlightenment. You cannot say that 'godlessness' leads to genocide, as you have argued.

The people who committed atrocities in North America in the 1800s prayed before they committed massacre.

Are you arguing that they were not Christians? Are you now arguing that America was not founded by Christians?

When was Christianity invented? In 33 AD? Or with the founding of one single church in North America, today attended by you?

Either Christianity prevents people from committing genocide, and always has, or it does not, and never has.

The latter is true. Hence, Enlightenment notwithstanding, you cannot claim that godlessness leads to genocide. It is not true. You must find another argument. You cannot claim superiority for your club.

...and that's as much as I read of that.


Here, let me bring you back to what I've written -- again, and again and again.


This is simply another case of misrepresenting what was said (by gross oversimplification) and then attacking that misrepresentation.

The first post on this.

Here's the second post on this...

Here's the third post on this.

...and here's where you decided to grace us with your presence -- implying that somehow the Rawada massacre had its origins/were partially to blame in/because of Christianity.

And probably the stunning thing about this -- no, not even probably -- is the fact that I'm actually having to argue this with anyone.

The people who lived and breathed that crap took that Leftist/Atheist Enlightenment philosophy, followed it to its logical conclusion, and it went off in their face -- over, and over, and over again. Even today, Cuba and North Korea are hell-holes, and holdovers of this philosophy. They're still digging up the bodies in Cambodia. But it's 'woop-de-doo -- no biggie -- coulda' happened to anyone.'

The reality is that if there were a string of Christian theocracies in the 20th century that butchered a couple hundred million people -- out of bueracratic planning, and "great leaps forward" -- as a Christian, I'd probably be writing this from a concentration camp.

We will have to begin again, because you have not read what I wrote.

I will re-state my argument in the simplest terms I can.

I am not claiming that a belief in Christianity provokes genocide.

Please re-read the previous sentence five times. Then we will be able to proceed.

Have you read that sentence five times?

Snap test: what was the sentence I asked you to re-read?

Naughty! Go back and look.

Excellent. "I am not claiming that a belief in Christianity provokes genocide." That's it! Now I can begin.

You have written:


And I would like to address this.

Firstly, I must ask you to answer this simple question.

Do you believe, or do you not believe, that people calling themselves 'Christian' were responsible for the greatest acts of genocide in the history of our species?

Because it is a fact of history that they did. People who believed in the God of Abraham, and that his son was born in Nazareth, and that it was all written down in The Bible, destroyed the indigenous populations of the Americas, the Caribbean, the Arctic, and Southern Africa. They started nearly two centuries before the publication of 'Critique of Practical Reason' in 1788 and they ended at the about the time of the births of Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao.

These things are facts, and are not open to argument.

In the light of this, your fixation on 'recent times' becomes irrelevant.

Since Christian people had 1600 years to perfect their faith and they still committed the worst acts of genocide in the history of our species, it would seem that the terrible crimes of the 'rightist' Hitler and the 'leftist' Stalin were caused not by a lack of spirituality but by a lack of humanity.

Why? Because, clearly, the presence or absence of a belief in god is irrelevant.

Whether these crimes were committed 'in recent history' or in 'the distant past', by Christians, by 'rightists' like Hitler or 'leftists' like Stalin, is irrelevant.

Kant, Marx, Darwin and The Bible are equally as relevant or irrelevant. These books merely changed the justifications for mass murder and the social contexts in which those mass murders took place.

It makes no difference whether you are a Christian or an atheist. A belief in the God of Abraham will not stop you from committing crimes of genocide, as we have seen, again and again, from the 1ate 1500s right to the present day.

And neither will the knowledge of the age of the universe.

The Christian faith of the Hutu and the Tutsi people did not prevent them from killing hundreds of thousands of each other this century. Christianity does not inoculate anyone from mass murder.

So you cannot claim superiority for your club. So you cannot claim that " Leftist/Atheist Enlightenment Philosphy led to far and away the greatest mass murder in recent history."

Why do you not include 'rightist' in your list?

Adolf Hitler was extremely right wing. His crimes were important. Why do you count these crimes out? Why do you ignore them?

I think dmz is just pissed that some "Godless Heathens" came on to the scene recently that were more efficient in mass killing people than "Team Jesus" were. Of course, most of the "Godless Heathens" weren't really "Godless" as such , more like puppets for the Church.

Useful idiots for a shadowy organisation.

You are, its called "Free market capatilist America"

Aside,

You're a decent bloke Wilbur, why do you align yourselves constantly with your captors, your tormentors and your persecutors.?

Youre savvy enough to know what is going on. Isn't it time to break free?

dmz, you have ignored the points I made.

I will repeat them here, so if no one adds to this thread, this is at least the last post, and people will be able to read what you did not have the courage to respond to.

....

You have written:


Firstly, I must ask you to answer this simple question.

Do you believe, or do you not believe, that people calling themselves 'Christian' were responsible for the greatest acts of genocide in the history of our species?

Because it is a fact of history that they did. People who believed in the God of Abraham, and that his son was born in Nazareth, and that it was all written down in The Bible, destroyed the indigenous populations of the Americas, the Caribbean, the Arctic, and Southern Africa. They started nearly two centuries before the publication of 'Critique of Practical Reason' in 1788 and they ended at the about the time of the births of Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao.

These things are facts, and are not open to argument.

In the light of this, your fixation on 'recent times' becomes irrelevant.

Since Christian people had 1600 years to perfect their faith and they still committed the worst acts of genocide in the history of our species, it would seem that the terrible crimes of the 'rightist' Hitler and the 'leftist' Stalin were caused not by a lack of spirituality but by a lack of humanity.

Why? Because, clearly, the presence or absence of a belief in god is irrelevant.

Whether these crimes were committed 'in recent history' or in 'the distant past', by Christians, by 'rightists' like Hitler or 'leftists' like Stalin, is irrelevant.

Kant, Marx, Darwin and The Bible are equally as relevant or irrelevant. These books merely changed the justifications for mass murder and the social contexts in which those mass murders took place.

It makes no difference whether you are a Christian or an atheist. A belief in the God of Abraham will not stop you from committing crimes of genocide, as we have seen, again and again, from the 1ate 1500s right to the present day.

And neither will the knowledge of the age of the universe.

The Christian faith of the Hutu and the Tutsi people did not prevent them from killing hundreds of thousands of each other this century. Christianity does not inoculate anyone from mass murder.

So you cannot claim superiority for your club. So you cannot claim that " Leftist/Atheist Enlightenment Philosphy led to far and away the greatest mass murder in recent history."