or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Federal Hate Crime Law
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Federal Hate Crime Law - Page 3

post #81 of 135
To confuse socialism with fascism and totalitarianism would seem rather ignorant, indeed. Unfortunately, it's all too common among certain Americans.
post #82 of 135
And in 4 years, the Afghan election will be rigged to allow Hamid "W" Karzai to be placed as president.

Hey, it's a hate thread.

Thanks to Letterman.
post #83 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yep. I highly recommend it too.

I think I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree with the outcome. Full disclosure of donors allows the curtain of secrecy in campaigns to be pulled back so you can know who the money trails comes from. It helps to see if there are any special interests and what those are. However the issue, and where this goes horribly wrong, is when a person donates to a cause they believe in, is harrassed, hounded, or otherwise mistreated, due to the misuse of public information.

There are simple pranks, the sending of the book for example, and then there are mean spirited malicious acts, like ruining a persons life as they know it, taking their job from them, or destroying their property and their sense of safety for them and their family.

If this were looked at from the opposite perspective, and it were a Christian or Mormon or Muslim group doing these same acts to a GLB piece of legislation. Would you still hold the act in high esteem? Or would it ring a different bell? And don't bother bringing up any recent times it may have happened, the point is not that there aren't those who do it, the point is, IS IT RIGHT? And by direct association, is the use of the information that is available right? I doubt you can justify it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #84 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Which ultra-right ideology took over a country or continent in living memory, and began systematically slaughtering it's citizens? When was the last time that happened at all?

1939 - Japanese and Nazis were right wing

Blaming the bulk of the worlds atrocities on the "Godless" does not make sense to me - religious people have killed plenty of people. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, for example.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #85 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

1939 - Japanese and Nazis were right wing

Blaming the bulk of the worlds atrocities on the "Godless" does not make sense to me - religious people have killed plenty of people. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, for example.


I could give you the Shintoists; Hitler's thought was right out of Nietzsche. You would have to argue that Roman Catholic thought is what produced Mein Kampf, which is impossible -- and even then you STILL couldn't hold a candle to the godless/Communists. (And again -- let's not forget this is about what is relevant today: the here and now, living memory -- not selective memory of 500 years or more ago, when the world was in general a very brutal place.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #86 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I doubt you can justify it.

I can justify it to myself but I doubt whether I can change your opinion.

In response to you and involuntaryserf, try to understand what's happening. People in a State are being asked to sign a petition that could change State law. Groups, whoever they may be, that oppose the petition, if they have access to the names of the signers, can contact them and over the course of time, argue their case against any upcoming law change. They can use their knowledge to perhaps change the minds of some of those who had planned on voting in the referendum. It's amazing, like you probably know, how people when given both sides of an issue can moderate some of their views. This is a democracy and it's a right for these people, in this case the G&L and Transexuals to make their case.

Obviously intimidating or in any way harming those people is wrong, but that is not what the point of this is, though no doubt some here will argue it's the whole point and they would of course be wrong.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #87 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Obviously intimidating or in any way harming those people is wrong, but that is not what the point of this is, though no doubt some here will argue it's the whole point and they would of course be wrong.

How do you know this? Based on things that happened in CA over the same kind of issue, what confidence do we have that what you claim is true?
post #88 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

How do you know this? Based on things that happened in CA over the same kind of issue, what confidence do we have that what you claim is true?

Do you really believe the whole point is to scare people on mass not to vote against them. Please, get real.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #89 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Do you really believe the whole point is to scare people on mass not to vote against them. Please, get real.

You have avoided answering my question.

We already have (at least) one example (in another state over the same kind of issue) of exactly the kind of harassment and intimidation you claim won't happen.

What do you have to offer besides flippant dismissals?
post #90 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I could give you the Shintoists; Hitler's thought was right out of Nietzsche. You would have to argue that Roman Catholic thought is what produced Mein Kampf, which is impossible -- and even then you STILL couldn't hold a candle to the godless/Communists. (And again -- let's not forget this is about what is relevant today: the here and now, living memory -- not selective memory of 500 years or more ago, when the world was in general a very brutal place.)

Well, the ruling classes are usually less religious than the lower classes - more well read, more likely to question religious teaching, etc. You could probably make a case that most of the atrocities have been committed by Atheists, because most rich and powerful people are at most moderately religious.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #91 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

You have avoided answering my question.

We already have (at least) one example (in another state over the same kind of issue) of exactly the kind of harassment and intimidation you claim won't happen.

What do you have to offer besides flippant dismissals?

There are bound to be some cases where there are idiots who cross lines no matter what the issue is. Does that mean that you close the door on that side completely? No. It means that you fight on and try to put a stop to anyone who tries to cross those lines.

My comment was not a flippant dismissal. If you want to choose to focus only on reports that fits someone's agenda, then go ahead. But I don't want to waste my time believing the hyped up hysteria and I certainly don't want to derail democracy because I'm opposed to GL&T rights.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #92 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

You would have to argue that Roman Catholic thought is what produced Mein Kampf, which is impossible -- and even then you STILL couldn't hold a candle to the godless/Communists.

Tell that to the Tutsis. Tell that to Radovan Karadzic.

Rwanda is as Christian a nation as ever existed. Even the clergy were involved.

Thousands of Bosnians prayed for the Christian Rodovan Karadzic on his arrest.
post #93 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Well, the ruling classes are usually less religious than the lower classes - more well read, more likely to question religious teaching, etc. You could probably make a case that most of the atrocities have been committed by Atheists, because most rich and powerful people are at most moderately religious.

Bah -- Macht nichts!

What is going happen to America is going to be a slow fade into nothing, not some Glen Beck Black helicopter fantasy -- fat, soft-porn consumers Jonesing for their next meatcicle made from animals that never saw the sun.

It's beyond anyone's control -- I just find it disingenuous to make the case that giving social heroin away for free, to addicts, is supposed to be the solution to all our problems. America, on every level has serious issues with every single sort of self medication.

Unfortunately, the last thing our politicians -- just keep repeating --> "The Government's NOT just another corporation" -- will ever tell us is that we need intervention. It's always more -- it's never less.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #94 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Tell that to the Tutsis. Tell that to Radovan Karadzic.

Rwanda is as Christian a nation as ever existed. Even the clergy were involved.

Thousands of Bosnians prayed for the Christian Rodovan Karadzic on his arrest.

Bringing up Rwanda was actually pretty dense -- in reality that was a serious Tribal cluster-Shtupp. Although there was a certain Ten Commandments in the mix, it's not the set you remember.

The Balkans example was better, and actually a fairly good example of Religious conflict that goes back centuries. I don't know that that conflict's the body count can compete with what happened under communism, though.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #95 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Bringing up Rwanda was actually pretty dense -- in reality that was a serious Tribal cluster-Shtupp.

Your argument is very foolish indeed. I don't mean to be patronising, but it's clear you haven't thought very deeply about this.

The fact that the violence was inter-tribal is entirely irrelevant.

You have consistently argued that 'godlessness' is somehow conducive to genocide. I have been to Central Africa (although not to Rwanda) and I can assure you that it is the most deeply Christian place I have ever visited. There are churches, quite literally, on every corner. These churches are Roman Catholic and evangelical.

There was genocide in Rwanda, and it was perpetrated by Christians. Its causes are irrelevant to this fact. Christianity is no bar to genocide.

Likewise in the Balkans. The 'bodycount' is irrelevant. Christians perpetrated genocide.

A Christian society is no bar to genocidal activity.
post #96 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Your argument is very foolish indeed. I don't mean to be patronising, but it's clear you haven't thought very deeply about this.

The fact that the violence was inter-tribal is entirely irrelevant.

You have consistently argued that 'godlessness' is somehow conducive to genocide. I have been to Central Africa (although not to Rwanda) and I can assure you that it is the most deeply Christian place I have ever visited. There are churches, quite literally, on every corner. These churches are Roman Catholic and evangelical.

There was genocide in Rwanda, and it was perpetrated by Christians. Its causes are irrelevant to this fact. Christianity is no bar to genocide.

Likewise in the Balkans. The 'bodycount' is irrelevant. Christians perpetrated genocide.

A Christian society is no bar to genocidal activity.

No, there's nothing foolish about it -- genocide for Tribal reasons is not genocide for Christian reasons -- when you can reconcile the Hutu Ten Commandments with the Mosaic Ten Commandments, I would love to hear it. The driving [perceived] Existential treat had nothing to do with Christian philosophy -- paying lip service to Christ doesn't make it His fault.

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

Better stick with your Balkans example. And when you put that in perspective with what shaped the 20th century, it becomes obvious how empirically poisonous Atheistic/Leftist ideology -- maybe Enlightenment philosophy is a better term -- is in practice. No wiggle room.

And maybe the boogie-man "Islamofascits" run a distant second -- but even they don't engineer famine and slaughter their own loyal citizens.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #97 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, there's nothing foolish about it -- genocide for Tribal reasons is not genocide for Christian reasons

The link between genocide and christian philosophies is much stronger than the link between genocide and liberal philosophies (i.e. the connection which you are trying to make). God commits genocide all the time in the bible, it is his main gig.

In fact, the link between liberal philosophies and original christian philosophies is MUCH stronger than the link between original christian philosophies and current christian philosophies. Early Christians were communists, in that they had shared property, and liberals (help the poor, feminism, etc).

The early christian church was one of the only places where women had any power in Roman society, so rich Roman ladies would sneak down to rituals in the sewers. It all changed after that, though.

I imagine that Christ, if he existed, would be fine with gay people and communists in a way that would really irritate and confuse the modern Christians.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #98 of 135
The Hutu 'Ten Commandments' are irrelevant. You do not understand what they were.

They were not 'religious' commandments and were not intended to be taken as religious commandments. They were political propaganda. They did not supplant the Christian Ten Commandments of the deeply Christian Hutu and Tutsi people.

And so they are irrelevant. Whatever the social causes of the genocide in Rwanda may be, they are irrelevant also.

You have argued that 'godlessness' is conducive to genocide. I have shown you that a deeply Christian society is no bar to genocide. That is all. I have not argued that Christian thought leads to genocide.

I have argued that Christianity is no bar to genocide, and the evidence is that I'm correct.

Christianity does not inoculate a people from committing acts of genocide.
post #99 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The link between genocide and christian philosophies is much stronger than the link between genocide and liberal philosophies (i.e. the connection which you are trying to make). God commits genocide all the time in the bible, it is his main gig.
...

Yes, and the 20th century was a history of God assuming control of dozens of countries, and then systematically selectively butchering the populations under the auspices of Enlightenment thought. Got it.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #100 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The Hutu 'Ten Commandments' are irrelevant.

...

Christianity does not inoculate a people from committing acts of genocide.

Well on the first point, like it or not -- the genocide was tribal. It's inarguable that it wasn't.

On the second point: Christianity consistently observed, does stop people from being a part of genocide; Marixism consistently observed leads to butchering hundreds of millions of people for social planning purposes. That's empirically verifiable.

If you can find me a series of countries in living memory or even in the 19-20th century where Christians took over and butchered their populations for social expediency let me know. And when you come back with the Balkans example again -- hold it up against what the communists accomplished in that region, and then hold that up against what Leftist philosophy did worldwide. Then tell me who has to realistically worry about what.

No one even comes close. If you imagine anyone does, produce the numbers.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #101 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There are bound to be some cases where there are idiots who cross lines no matter what the issue is. Does that mean that you close the door on that side completely? No. It means that you fight on and try to put a stop to anyone who tries to cross those lines.

My comment was not a flippant dismissal. If you want to choose to focus only on reports that fits someone's agenda, then go ahead. But I don't want to waste my time believing the hyped up hysteria and I certainly don't want to derail democracy because I'm opposed to GL&T rights.

How is it derailing democracy to protect the identities of people who have given to a cause for fear of them being harassed for such giving?

And you seriously want me to believe that the whole point of posting peoples names and numbers and such is so that a concerned citizen can come to your house to talk you out of your stupid position on an issue?

There is not one shred of evidence to back that up that I have ever seen.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #102 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Well on the first point, like it or not -- the genocide was tribal. It's inarguable that it wasn't.

And that is irrelevant. I will explain this to you as clearly as I can.

The Hutus and the Tutsis belong to different ethnic groups. Both of these ethnic groups are deeply Christian.

Are you with me so far? I do not want to patronise you, but you may like to re-read the previous sentence once or twice, I think.

I am arguing that Christian people commit acts of genocide. The social context and the number of people killed are irrelevant to this argument.

The Hutus and the Tutsis are both deeply Christian peoples. Their religion did not stop them. Hence Christianity is no bar to genocide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

If you can find me a series of countries in living memory or even in the 19-20th century where Christians took over and butchered their populations for social expediency let me know.

Dates are bodycounts are not relevant. Either Christian people are less likely to commit mass murder than the 'godless', as you argue, or they are not.

Nevertheless, you brought up the subject of genocide by Christian people in the 19th and 20th centuries, and I'm happy to oblige you.

Christian people devastated the populations of North America and the Arctic during the 1800s, massacring thousands and causing hundreds of thousands more to die during forced relocations from violence and starvation.

Christians massacred an unknown number of people, certainly more than a million, in the deserts and mountains of southern Africa. There, Christians made entire peoples extinct and forced millions more into famine. The |Xam people of the Northern Cape, for example, were made extinct by Christian settlers in about 1920. The work was begun by Christian settlers and continued after independence; the 1982 massacre of 6000 to 8000 Ndebele people for social expediency in Matabeleland by Christian Zimbabwean soldiers on the orders of the committed Roman Catholic Robert Mugabe is a recent example of a recent atrocity.

These people were not 'godless'. And yet their Christianity did not prevent them murdering thousands. Christianity does not inoculate a people from mass murder,

The democidal Nigerian blockade of Biafra led to a famine between 1967 and 1970 that led to a million Ibibio and Igbo deaths. The Nigerians were led by one Yakubu Gowon (who later founded the evangelical movement 'Nigeria Prays', incidentally.) The Dutch Reform Church in South Africa decreed that black people had souls in the 1940s and all of the architects of the Apartheid laws were devout Christians.

If you add up all the colonial genocides, Christians are winning, hands down, and should never be beaten bar the advent of global nuclear war.
post #103 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

...Dates are bodycounts are not relevant.
...

You're playing games in the face of the empirical evidence: Communism, and Godless Leftist Ideology, etc. is the most murderous ideology in recent History.

You can't disprove that.

But as an end run, you want to muddy the waters by claiming people who called themselves Christians in the 19th century, but who practiced various Statist philosophy somehow negates the fact that Communism, and Godless Leftist Ideology, etc. is the most murderous ideology in recent History.

"Christianity is no bar" is an ignorant observation -- apparently nothing else was "a bar" to the earlier genocide either -- which, I suppose places the cause everywhere. It's a meaningless statement.

As an example, apparently were are told that Hitler was a Roman Catholic -- I guess it's Christianity's fault -- or that it's marginally to blame for the Holocaust? It's a stupid formulation. Hitler didn't go digging through Aquinas or Anslem or Augustine and suddenly have the realization that he needed to exterminate the Jews, or invade Poland for Lebensraum. Hitler read Nietzsche and other evil Enlightenment types and went from there. If you've studied a shred of that philosophy, it is as plain as the nose on your face. The very basis of the Enlightenment, and later/especially Kant and those who followed, was a rejection of the basic claims of moral [R]evelation, which is an a priori rejection of the foundation of Christianity.

So, I'm real sorry you think that Hitler could believe Christ and Nietzsche at the same and time and be a consistent Roman Catholic -- or that Christianity is responsible for not containing his madness, but pathetic attempts at equivocation are not an honest reckoning. You either practice Christianity, or you practice something else -- one is not the other.

Also, this may simply be a case of your ignorance of the direction and prevalence of the philosophy after Kant, and how Hegel, Marx, Darwin and the rest influenced Modern thought, and with it antics of colonialism and statism as we know it today. I'd imagine that is the case.

But in the end you people amaze me -- even without the philosophy you have it cut and dry: several hundred million dead for nothing more than Communist expediency -- not war, not expansion, simply rearranging the culture for political ends -- and all you can manage is some lame "what, me worry", "oh Christians didn't stop it" mumbo jumbo.

Simply amazing.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #104 of 135
[QUOTE=NoahJ;1514568

There is not one shred of evidence to back that up that I have ever seen.[/QUOTE]

I can't say I'm surprised.

If you don't respect the rules for everyone, as they are public documents fully accessible under normal circumstances, then lets start taking rights away from other groups too. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Oh but the GLT's are harassing everyone, silly me I forgot....Sheesh. God Help America.


Separately but still related as it's one of the reasons petition signers names are made public-

"Ms. McElroy said employees were paid $1 per signature they obtained if the number was less than 500 names. The amount rose to $1.50 a signature if the gatherer produced 500 or more names. They were paid twice a week, she said; she said some employees did exceptionally well financially.

While on the job, Ms. McElroy told the T&G, co-workers informed her she could make more money if she induced people first to sign petition A regarding wine sales, then slip the petition to ban same-sex marriage underneath and ask unsuspecting people to sign the second copy without telling them what it concerned."
~ http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/101305.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #105 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

You're playing games in the face of the empirical evidence: Communism, and Godless Leftist Ideology, etc. is the most murderous ideology in recent History.

You can't disprove that.

But as an end run, you want to muddy the waters by claiming people who called themselves Christians in the 19th century, but who practiced various Statist philosophy somehow negates the fact that Communism, and Godless Leftist Ideology, etc. is the most murderous ideology in recent History.

"Christianity is no bar" is an ignorant observation -- apparently nothing else was "a bar" to the earlier genocide either -- which, I suppose places the cause everywhere. It's a meaningless statement.

As an example, apparently were are told that Hitler was a Roman Catholic -- I guess it's Christianity's fault -- or that it's marginally to blame for the Holocaust? It's a stupid formulation. Hitler didn't go digging through Aquinas or Anslem or Augustine and suddenly have the realization that he needed to exterminate the Jews, or invade Poland for Lebensraum. Hitler read Nietzsche and other evil Enlightenment types and went from there. If you've studied a shred of that philosophy, it is as plain as the nose on your face. The very basis of the Enlightenment, and later/especially Kant and those who followed, was a rejection of the basic claims of moral [R]evelation, which is an a priori rejection of the foundation of Christianity.

But in the end you people amaze me -- even without the philosophy you have it cut and dry: several hundred million dead for nothing more than Communist expediency -- not war, not expansion, simply rearranging the culture for political ends -- and all you can manage is some lame "what, me worry", "oh Christians didn't stop it" mumbo jumbo.

Simply amazing.

I have read your post.

Now I am going to repeat my argument again, because you have not understood what I wrote. Again, I will try and use the simplest language I can.

You are arguing that 'godlessness' and 'leftist ideology' are conducive to genocide.

I am arguing that the presence or absence of religion in a people makes absolutely no difference to their capacity to commit atrocities.

Are you with me so far?

The genocide of Hitler, who was extremely right wing, and the democide of Stalin, who was extremely left wing, were not conducted because of a lack of spirituality, but because of a lack of humanity.

We know for a fact that this is true, because spirituality does not make any difference.

I have proven this to you by citing as evidence the fact that normal Christian men and women, who were responsible for the greatest mass murders and genocides in the history of our species, were not prevented by their faith from conducting these murders.

It was not because they were Christian that they conducted these murders, any more than Hitler and Mugabe's Catholicism prompted theirs.

Their religion did not prevent them.

Please re-read the previous four sentences until you understand what I am arguing.

European people had 1,600 years to perfect their understanding of Christianity when they began the genocide in South America. It did not prevent them, and Marx, Hegel and Darwin were not born until this genocide was over.

The genocide in the Americas and in the Arctic and in Southern Africa (and in Rwanda, and Bosnia, and Nigeria) were performed by Christians. Hence, the presence of a religion in a people is no hindrance to their committing atrocities for greed or expediency, or whatever (the social context does not matter; we are talking about the capability to kill by the thousand.)

Hence you have no basis to argue that 'leftist' ideology (and I note you do not feel the need to designate Hitler as 'rightist', even though he was) is conducive to grotesque murder.

Until you understand this extremely simple argument, I will keep repeating it.
post #106 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

...
Their religion did not prevent them.
...

Their "religion" was Leftist ideology, or Atheism, or whatever was the particular case.*



























*I hate to rain on your parade, but regardless what you've been led to believe -- people cannot hold two antithetical beliefs simultaneously.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #107 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Their "religion" was Leftist ideology, or Atheism, or whatever was the particular case.*
.[/SIZE]

No. The term you used was 'godlessness'. Not 'religion'. Your argument is that godlessness leads to genocide.

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

And it turns our that it does not. It never has. Indeed, people who consider themselves Christian have been responsible for the worst acts of genocide perpetrated in the history of our species.

So you cannot claim that godlessness leads to genocide. You must not use this argument; it is not true, since a belief in the Christian god, and worship of this god, does not prevent genocide. You must find another cause.
post #108 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No. The term you used was 'godlessness'. Not 'religion'. Your argument is that godlessness leads to genocide.

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

And it turns our that it does not. It never has. Indeed, people who consider themselves Christian have been responsible for the worst acts of genocide perpetrated in the history of our species.

So you cannot claim that godlessness leads to genocide. You must not use this argument; it is not true, since a belief in the Christian god, and worship of this god, does not prevent genocide. You must find another cause.

No -- one of the terms I used was godlessness -- my argument is that Leftist/Atheist Enlightenment Philosphy led to far and away the greatest mass murder in recent history.

Which is undeniable.

You've been led to believe that somehow a person can believe in the philosophy of the supremacy of the State, or Marxism, or that Man is the measure of all things, etc. -- and simultaneously believe in the Lordship of Christ, or "If you love Me, keep my commandments", etc. I'm not certain how you think that works -- but I'd love to hear it.

"Religion" is not a garnish, that is there to inform your fundamental belief that you are your own god.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #109 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No. The term you used was 'godlessness'. Not 'religion'. Your argument is that godlessness leads to genocide.

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

And it turns our that it does not. It never has. Indeed, people who consider themselves Christian have been responsible for the worst acts of genocide perpetrated in the history of our species.

So you cannot claim that godlessness leads to genocide. You must not use this argument; it is not true, since a belief in the Christian god, and worship of this god, does not prevent genocide. You must find another cause.

You have to sync your definitions of religion or this argument is not going to go anywhere. Godlessness is not lack of religion anymore than calling yourself a christian is a sign of morality and values.

Many people over the years have claimed religious views or principles to gain power and then have simply tossed that veil aside when it was too inconvenient for them.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #110 of 135
There is the supremacy of man and the inventions of his mind, and then there is the God entering history and making both moral definitions, and a demand of obedience. On one side you have Enlightenment philosophy with its social engineering -- the belief that we are primarily political creatures. Taken to its logical ends it ALWAYS has led to mass murder, probably starting with the French Revolution.

On the other side you have Christ informing us that we are moral, not political, creatures, and that we live with certain unambiguous demands. Not very popular.

To quote noted American poet Robert A. Zimmerman:
Quote:
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord -- But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #111 of 135
At last you have actually read my post and responded to it. Thank you.

However, your response is very bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No -- one of the terms I used was godlessness -- my argument is that Leftist/Atheist Enlightenment Philosphy led to far and away the greatest mass murder in recent history.

This is undeniable.

And irrelevant. Recent history is irrelevant.

Christianity is 2,000 years old. Either this religion has prevented people from committing acts of genocide or it has not. And it has not. Indeed, people calling themselves Christian have been responsible for the greatest acts of genocide in the history of humankind. This is a fact.

And so when you say that godlessness and leftist ideology leads to genocide, in order to claim superiority for those following Christianity, it is an argument that means nothing. It is a lack of humanity, not a lack of spirituality, that leads Christians (such as the Portuguese and the Spanish and the Dutch and the British and the Nigerians and the Rwandans and the Bosnians) and non-Christians and atheists (such as the Soviets and the Nazis) to commit genocide.

Both Christians and the godless commit genocide. Genocide was not invented after Darwin and Marx any more than it was invented after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.

So the spirituality or the godlessness of a people means nothing. It is irrelevant.

So you cannot argue that godlessness and leftist ideology lead to genocide. (I note also that you cannot bring yourself to write that rightist ideology, such as that of Hitler, leads to genocide.)
post #112 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I can't say I'm surprised.

If you don't respect the rules for everyone, as they are public documents fully accessible under normal circumstances, then lets start taking rights away from other groups too. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Oh but the GLT's are harassing everyone, silly me I forgot....Sheesh. God Help America.

What? Who said anything about this being about one particular persons actions? This is not ok when anyone does it. Period.

Quote:
Separately but still related as it's one of the reasons petition signers names are made public-

"Ms. McElroy said employees were paid $1 per signature they obtained if the number was less than 500 names. The amount rose to $1.50 a signature if the gatherer produced 500 or more names. They were paid twice a week, she said; she said some employees did exceptionally well financially.

While on the job, Ms. McElroy told the T&G, co-workers informed her she could make more money if she induced people first to sign petition A regarding wine sales, then slip the petition to ban same-sex marriage underneath and ask unsuspecting people to sign the second copy without telling them what it concerned."
~ http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/101305.html

No, now you are getting into fraud. The person who gathered the signatures and committed the fraud should be public. Not because they gathered signatures but because a fraud was committed. That is a crime and falls under a separate subject. Try not to confuse the topics. Any signature sheets she turned in should be tossed if it was found that she actually performed these acts that are claimed. Makes it easy to protect those who were defrauded.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #113 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

...Recent history is irrelevant...

No, recent history tells us what works, and what leads to killing off large blocks of the citizenry for the needs of the State.

I'd suggest reading up on the development of political ideology in light of Locke and Kant, following through Marx, Dewey, and so forth. There is a clear path -- which is continually refined consistently, until you arrive at the actions of the Great Leap Forward, and the Khmer Rouge.

And finally, if you don't understand what it means to follow one philosophy or another, that you can't hold two opposing views simultaneously -- I can't help you. Calling yourself a dog doesn't make it so.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #114 of 135
One more thing, mumbo jumbo -- you probably should research the persecution of Christianity in the various relevant countries. In the past, (and even today in China and other countries) those in power were able to understand the fundamental difference between Christianity and Statism, which resulted in persecution and political manipulation of Church.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #115 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

What? Who said anything about this being about one particular persons actions? This is not ok when anyone does it. Period.


No, now you are getting into fraud. The person who gathered the signatures and committed the fraud should be public. Not because they gathered signatures but because a fraud was committed. That is a crime and falls under a separate subject. Try not to confuse the topics. Any signature sheets she turned in should be tossed if it was found that she actually performed these acts that are claimed. Makes it easy to protect those who were defrauded.

Your first paragraph makes zero sense, either you can't understand what I wrote or you can't understand the issues. I suspect a combination of the two.

Your second paragraph, other than being rude (which you're not the only one guilty of being as SDW2001 clearly demonstrates) is riddled to the core with a profound lack of understanding of the issues here.

Therefore, I'll maybe catch you later on another subject, as this one you're too far behind on to make it worth my while continuing to reply.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #116 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Your first paragraph makes zero sense, either you can't understand what I wrote or you can't understand the issues. I suspect a combination of the two.

Rather than trying to understand what I wrote let's just assume I can't understand. And I am the rude one. Nice. \

Quote:
Your second paragraph, other than being rude (which you're not the only one guilty of being as SDW2001 clearly demonstrates) is riddled to the core with a profound lack of understanding of the issues here.

What part was rude?

Quote:
Therefore, I'll maybe catch you later on another subject, as this one you're too far behind on to make it worth my while continuing to reply.

Wow, whatever dude.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #117 of 135
You are arguing that 'godlessness' leads to genocide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, recent history tells us what works, and what leads to killing off large blocks of the citizenry for the needs of the State.

I'd suggest reading up on the development of political ideology in light of Locke and Kant, following through Marx, Dewey, and so forth. There is a clear path -- which is continually refined consistently, until you arrive at the actions of the Great Leap Forward, and the Khmer Rouge.

And finally, if you don't understand what it means to follow one philosophy or another, that you can't hold two opposing views simultaneously -- I can't help you. Calling yourself a dog doesn't make it so.

This is a very dense response (forgive me).

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.
post #118 of 135
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Your first paragraph makes zero sense, either you can't understand what I wrote or you can't understand the issues. I suspect a combination of the two.

Your second paragraph, other than being rude (which you're not the only one guilty of being as SDW2001 clearly demonstrates) is riddled to the core with a profound lack of understanding of the issues here.

Therefore, I'll maybe catch you later on another subject, as this one you're too far behind on to make it worth my while continuing to reply.

I wasn't rude. I called you out on your garbage of a post. It's amazing: Someone can post can say "you're voting [for Republicans] kills children" and I'm the one who is rude. LOL.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #119 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

One more thing, mumbo jumbo -- you probably should research the persecution of Christianity in the various relevant countries. In the past, (and even today in China and other countries) those in power were able to understand the fundamental difference between Christianity and Statism, which resulted in persecution and political manipulation of Church.

Irrelevant.

We are talking about whether 'godlessness' leads to genocide.
post #120 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This needs to change. Sometimes I think If I was a member of Congress, I'd vote no on every single bill.

At least try to give a little credit to Ron Paul, huh?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Federal Hate Crime Law