A Threat?

[Sweetie]

I was just thinking of two things and was pondering them together:

a) Why didn't Mussolini kill the Pope instead of merely have him imprisoned?
b) The frog analogy. If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water it'll jump right out. If you put it in tepid water and slowly turn up the heat, well, boiled frog anyone?

To the first I would say stragically it was a smart move because Christians especially consider Christ the King of Kings. Now, that means to them that he is higher than any King. They have to obey their nations and governments, but only to a point. Morally they are not required to do what their government wants if they are asked to do what they consider to be immoral. Many people are like this as well. They do what they think is right, if someone asks them or requires them to do what they think is wrong or don't agree with, they don't do it. Now, that only works to a point but for all important things it seems to be true.

Now, in America it seems there are many issues rising up at once, The Pledge of Allegience, the judge and the Ten Commandments, abortion especially third-trimester and homosexual marriage. If you can name any others feel free.

People fight for their freedom and almost always their freedom especially it seems their religious freedom. Now, with being attacked from all sides at once, do you think this has risen up in the majority of Christians in America and do you think they are right to feel threatened even to such a degree as to fight back and hold their ranks, to make use of their own power? Also, do you think stragically it is a good move to do this all at once as opposed to picking specific battles that are more important which could be related to the slowly turning up the water as opposed to fighting them from all fronts at the same time, almost like backing them in a corner, not having the clever patience to strategize and forcing them to fight back?

[livius drusus]

Mussolini imprisoned a pope?

[Goliath]

Mussolini imprisoned a pope?

I was wondering the same thing...if he did, that was quite a feat!

[seebs]

Honestly, I think what's happening in America is that Christians have gotten callous and arrogant about their position as a privileged majority, and it's probably a good thing for them to realize that they don't have the right to push their religion in some parts of the public sphere.

I don't really see any threats to Christian practice, only to attempts to make everyone else practice the same things whether they agree with us or not.

[Petra]

What as I see as a threat to my own culture is the aggressive marketing and evangelist-style Christianity. It's started already and freaks me the fuck out. But, hopefully, the vast majority of us will continue to reject these thieving, power-mad, spiritually-blackmailing, status-ambitious Pharisees from tele-evangelist Protestant hell, and the freaks who covet their wealth and political clout, like our very own Brian Tamaki and his Destiny Church.

If those people feel threatened by people like me, then good. Fuck them.

They are people with no heart, no soul, no humanity. They're all about repression and oppression. Love and happiness is for hippies and liberals, and is therefore an abhorrence to God (for some weird sado-masochistic reason).

Gah! Sorry about my venom, but I've just heard that Brian Tamaki is planning another one of his anti-homosexual/anti-civil union marches in Auckland sometime between now and Xmas. He'll have a bunch of kids wearing black t-shirts with bold red "Enough is Enough" printed on them, chanting and punching the air like Nazi Brownshirts. Enough is e-fucking-nuff, alright. Destiny even has a political division now, and I'm certain Tamaki is looking to become Lord Protector eventually. Cromwellian cunt. :fuming:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3612122&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

Hopefully, we will remain resistant to such negative change; but vigilance is essential.

[lisarea]

b) The frog analogy. If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water it'll jump right out. If you put it in tepid water and slowly turn up the heat, well, boiled frog anyone?

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I have to go out and can't respond to the actual topic, but I did want to point out that, while useful, this analogy is apparently incorrect. Frogs won't just sit there and let themselves be boiled to death just because you raise the heat gradually.

[The Lone Ranger]

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I have to go out and can't respond to the actual topic, but I did want to point out that, while useful, this analogy is apparently incorrect. Frogs won't just sit there and let themselves be boiled to death just because you raise the heat gradually.

Lisarea beat me to it. While I'm not suggesting that it's a bad analogy, the central "fact" is untrue. You can't boil a frog to death by raising the water temperature so slowly that it doesn't notice until it's too late.

Pain receptors will begin to respond once a certain threshold temperature is crossed, no matter how slowly the temperature is raised, and the froggy will then do whatever it can to escape.

Cheers,

Michael

[Sweetie]

You kidding? What, no boiled frog? :wink:

It was meant to be an analogy to outline something that does happen though. Didn't Mussoline imprison the Pope? I guess I don't know, one of those little things stored in my brain which I never dealt enough with to care whether it was true or false, just how I heard of it. The idea though is that the nation or the leader who does kill outright the Pope would probably have not just a nation on his hands to deal with, but a scattering of people throughout the world in various degrees of outrage. In that sense, it is a little more acceptable to imprison the Pope as opposed to an outright attack and it's also more clever.

Now the idea is a slow hardly imperceptible change becomes more easily acceptable but an in-your-face confrontation usually takes an overhaul or at least a battle of wills. In that sense, those who are smart enough to pick their battles may find themselves on the winning side more often because it's clever. You don't rouse a dragon so to speak, if you don't have to. You tiptoe around him if you really want to get what you want and are willing to put in the work to do it or even set a trap, but you don't rouse him and then have to deal with him dead-on.

The connection between the two thoughts is that people will tolerate so much especially in small doses and you can slowly increase the doses and they can tolerate more. You don't kill the Pope outright if you expect to get anywhere. If all you want is to be king for a day, then ok, if you survive the backlash. If what you want is substantial longterm change, you play the game. I think because there are so many groups all with their own agendas on the sides opposite to the ones Christians may pick, I just don't think it's very smart and I think it's part of the reason Bush won. The problem is when people are pushed, they push back. Black people in America eventually won their freedom. I just think tamping down religious freedom is one of the biggest mistakes ever to make, you don't go there unless you absolutely have to or without offering a compromise because there is nothing people will fight for more than their religious freedom I think, it rouses the beast, it's like a call to arms.

[Sweetie]

Can anybody name a place and time not of the present where suppressing religious freedom has succeeded? It didn't work for Russia at least, I don't know who else I would name. What does history have to teach in this regard? Civil wars happen.

[seebs]

Well, it seems to have worked pretty well on the whole for China.

But I see no threats at all to religious freedom; just a lot of nasty rhetoric coming from the propaganda folks.

[Sweetie]

At the very least, Fundamentalists think their freedom is threatened, and they aren't such a small group either. And what happens ten years down the road if what they have been fearing has come true?

[Adora]

Can anybody name a place and time not of the present where suppressing religious freedom has succeeded? It didn't work for Russia at least, I don't know who else I would name. What does history have to teach in this regard? Civil wars happen.
Oh well, fuck, let's see. There were the Christians after I think it was the first Crusade, when they took Jersualem, who started kicking out and banning the Jews, Zoroastrians and Muslims.

Er, Jews persecuted in Britain quite a number of times during the Middle Ages.

Jews pretty much copped the short end of the stick a lot, actually.

Oh, that's right. Invasion of the Indus by the Aryans. Hinduism was instigated to assimilate and wipe-out the local religions.

Pre-War Japan was fairly heavyhanded, especially with State Shintoism, and had very little tolerance (and oppressed) other religions- even Buddhism. Which is one of the reason they're so lax about religions now.

And yeah, there's that whole "Kill the Christians" thing that occured during the years of isolationism because they associated Christianity with the foreign powers taking over Asia, which was fair enough. The Spaniards and Portugese were looking to dominate Asia, and one of the ways they did that was through Catholicism. The Japanese caught onto this fact, and stamped out Christianity (well, to a degree) and withdrew from the world to avoid said problems.

Oh, of course, The Buddhist temples were destroyed, monks killed and national heritage well, fucked, during the 'Cultural Revolution' in China.

[Sweetie]

Oh well, fuck, let's see. There were the Christians after I think it was the first Crusade, when they took Jersualem, who started kicking out and banning the Jews, Zoroastrians and Muslims.

*looks around* Christians suppressing the religion of others in that time succeeded? The Romans persecuted the Christians and the Christians won. The Muslims and the Christians are still fighting, beginning with the Crusades to take back the Holy Land.

I don't see any success stories, I see a constant battle that hasn't ended, particularily amongst Jews and Muslims.

I'll look into some of those claims tomorrow. :wave:

[wade-w]

Nothing in any of the examples you cite is in any way an example of Christians losing religious freedom. It's more trying to keep fundamentalists from shoving their religion down everyone elses throat.

The debate over abortaion is over 30 years old. Late term abortion in particular is an issue raised by pro-life types, not atheists. The "under God" phrase was the spark for the judge and the ten commandments; they are in fact linked, not seperate prongs in some attack on religous freedom. So I guess I don't see your point, Sweetie. As far as I can tell, the only people who are a threat to religous freedom in the US are some Christians. Unless, of course, "religous freedom" is doublespeak for "theocratic repression."

[seebs]

At the very least, Fundamentalists think their freedom is threatened, and they aren't such a small group either. And what happens ten years down the road if what they have been fearing has come true?

About the same thing that happens if what they're trying to do happens; we have a lot of people who can't live their lives the way they want to anymore.

[wildernesse]

Also, in none of your examples are Christians asked to do anything immoral--so there's no point in them using the "my religion tells me to resist immorality" card. No one is forcing them to have homosexual marriages or abortions or say anything that they disagree with. If you don't like it, don't do it. There's nothing especially moral about forcing religion on other people, either for that matter.

Fundamentalists who think their freedoms are threatened are a bunch of whiners--where do they think they have the freedom to walk all over the rest of the country? They don't have the freedom to make other people live as they do.

The problem with your question of what happens when religions are suppressed is that Christianity is not being suppressed in the US. In some places, like government agencies and schools and courts, etc. it is being weeded out--but it didn't belong there in the first place. So that leaves, I don't know, EVERY other aspect of your life available for religious expression.

[wei yau]

Now, in America it seems there are many issues rising up at once, The Pledge of Allegience, the judge and the Ten Commandments, abortion especially third-trimester and homosexual marriage. If you can name any others feel free.

I don't think there's a need to name anymore. The list you've presented is sufficient for discussion.

I see that the discussion is being phrased as "Certain Christian-fundamentalists feel that the above issues represent a suppression of their religious freedom".

I feel that is a specious arguement.

The Pledge of Allegiance originated as a wholly secular statement (although, written by a pastor). The inclusion of "Under God" was used to distinguish the US from godless commies in the USSR. This is a political statement, cloaked as a religious stance. In my opinion, by making "Under God" optional, we would make the Pledge more inclusive. Christian fundamentalists are free to state "Under God", if they choose. But, non-theists (or non-Christians) can omit it, if they choose. I see no evidence of religious suppression.

The 10 Commandments in a courthouse is a clear violation of church and state. All pretense that the decalogue is in any way representative of the establishment of American law is simply that...pretense. You want to see religious suppression? Wait for a muslim judge to install a monument to the Pillars of Islam.

Abortion is a health issue. Yes, the debate over the morality of abortion is ongoing and probably will never end. But, abortion does not infringe on religion anymore than capital punishment or war.

Finally, as far as I'm concerned, there is no rational, secular or justifiable arguement against homosexual marriage. To date, all arguements I've ever heard are rooted in bigotry and ignorance. I'd love for that to change, but I'm still waiting.

In the end I don't see how a case could possibly be made for the increase of suppression of Christian fundamentalists. I recognize that they preceive it as such, I just don't agree with the perception.

There's no end to the number of new churches being constructed.

Christian religious broadcasts dominate Sunday morning television.

There are numerous Christian-based political organizations throughout the country. Many of whom wield considerable power and substantial wealth.

Christianity is so ingrained in our culture, that it is almost a de facto religion.

Most politicians at the national level are assumed to be Christian, almost without asking.

No, I see no evidence of suppression of Christian fundamentalism. I see plenty of evidence of resistance against the tenets of Christian fundamentalism being forced into areas it should stay out of, e.g. Creationism taught as a science.

The sad thing is, recognizing that Christian fundamentalists do feel persecuted. That feeling can only force them to push even harder, as per the OP. But, I don't know how to counter that perception. As an atheist in America, I see Christianity all around me. I wonder how can Christians not see the same.

[Sweetie]

So that leaves, I don't know, EVERY other aspect of your life available for religious expression.

I'm not a Fundamentalist. I just think that they feel threatened. I just think too much too soon and I'm just trying to put myself in their position because it is the mindset of such a large group.

Actually, abortion is an example. Start off slow and progress and in the process win, right? First term, then second term, then third term. I would bet that those who were for abortion thirty years ago, even just first term would have cried off if they would have suspected that it would progress to third term. They were probably saying to themselves because they didn't put two and two together that one causes the other, that the latter necessarily follows the first. Who could imagine third term abortions? It's so abhorrent it causes people like me to go Pro-Life. First-term I could let slide, second term I'm wavering, third-term I'm gone.

I'm the kind of person though, which just makes me think of them, who can let alot of things slide until you put something directly in my way or back me into a corner. If you avoid doing all these things with me, you can get away with alot more even if just in the matter of friendships.

[Sweetie]

The Pledge of Allegiance originated as a wholly secular statement (although, written by a pastor). The inclusion of "Under God" was used to distinguish the US from godless commies in the USSR. This is a political statement, cloaked as a religious stance. In my opinion, by making "Under God" optional, we would make the Pledge more inclusive. Christian fundamentalists are free to state "Under God", if they choose. But, non-theists (or non-Christians) can omit it, if they choose. I see no evidence of religious suppression.

In that case though, I'm not saying there's no validity to the arguements. What I'm saying is which battle, especially in this latest election, was more important to you? I don't see that they're all necessarily tied together.

The 10 Commandments in a courthouse is a clear violation of church and state. All pretense that the decalogue is in any way representative of the establishment of American law is simply that...pretense. You want to see religious suppression? Wait for a muslim judge to install a monument to the Pillars of Islam.

The problem is that the average person most likely considers that eight of those ten commandments is a good code of honour to live by. Really just seems to be fighting over nothing.

Abortion is a health issue. Yes, the debate over the morality of abortion is ongoing and probably will never end. But, abortion does not infringe on religion anymore than capital punishment or war.

The problem with abortion is that in it's extremes there's an inability to compromise. You can't think that abortion is both murder and not murder at the same time, which is why it is so affronting. You can't say that abortion is murder and then say well, you should feel free to murder all you want.

Finally, as far as I'm concerned, there is no rational, secular or justifiable arguement against homosexual marriage. To date, all arguements I've ever heard are rooted in bigotry and ignorance. I'd love for that to change, but I'm still waiting.

Like I said, what I'm putting forth is really only about strategy, a how to get what you want, how to play the game well. Your arguements could be incredible valid, but put them against a Fundamentalist for instance, and what do you expect to win? Political moves are just as stretegic as military moves.

The sad thing is, recognizing that Christian fundamentalists do feel persecuted. That feeling can only force them to push even harder, as per the OP. But, I don't know how to counter that perception. As an atheist in America, I see Christianity all around me. I wonder how can Christians not see the same.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. :yup: I suppose it's like, how can we do what we want to do without getting them to push back.

[dave_a]

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. :yup: I suppose it's like, how can we do what we want to do without getting them to push back.

Destroy them from the inside. In other words go to church.

Consider that the fundamentalists who view themselves as persecuted are largely referring to sex and gender roles. Gay marriage, gays as pastors/clergy, abortion, women's position in society/family etc. There is also the seperation of church/state issues like the pledge and 10 commandments.

Look at what has happened though. We have many sects, even mainstream ones who now allow homosexuals and women to be the clergy. This is a huge change from the past. When it comes to the secularism that liberal theists and atheists want these "progressive" churches aren't our enemy at all and in fact they are valuable assets.

How did these churches get so progressive? It wasn't due to some powerful oratory from a secularist, it was due to their ranks being filled with people who wouldn't buy into the prejudice and so they changed. With the exception of very tiny churches it costs a lot of money to run a church these days and this means they need dues(tithe) paying members. If the membership declines stating a particular issue as the reason then the position gets changed or they go under.

So, if you want to actively do something to make a change, then change them from the inside out. You can do this by attending a church where there is a moderate degree of fundamentalism and planting seeds in people. Bible studies and "fellowship groups" are a great place to do this. All you have to do is ask simple questions. Like when the bible study leader reads a passage about homosexuality being an abomination, say something like "I know someone who is gay and they are a really nice person, why is the bible so against them?"

These folks are generally well prepared to resist outside attacks on their faith, but are not at all prepared for an inside job when done in a sweet, friendly, simple question type manner. Never argue, debate or get defensive, just ask very short, simple questions every once in awhile and if you get a strong answer back just look all meek and apologize.

[wildernesse]

So that leaves, I don't know, EVERY other aspect of your life available for religious expression.

I'm not a Fundamentalist. I just think that they feel threatened. I just think too much too soon and I'm just trying to put myself in their position because it is the mindset of such a large group.

I meant for the "you" to be a general you--so not really you in particular. Sorry about that. I think that they feel threatened too--but for no good reason. I think that often they are manipulated by people who know better and who use them to gain power and a name for themselves.

Actually, abortion is an example. Start off slow and progress and in the process win, right? First term, then second term, then third term. I would bet that those who were for abortion thirty years ago, even just first term would have cried off if they would have suspected that it would progress to third term. They were probably saying to themselves because they didn't put two and two together that one causes the other, that the latter necessarily follows the first. Who could imagine third term abortions? It's so abhorrent it causes people like me to go Pro-Life. First-term I could let slide, second term I'm wavering, third-term I'm gone.

I disagree with the so-called pro-life position. And I think your account of events--where Non-fundies thought that they'd inch up to 3rd trimester abortions is wrong. At the time of Roe, states were given the ability to set limits on when abortions would be provided--all the way to 3rd term if they so chose. However, no state could deny 1st term abortion and after the 2nd, states were allowed to regulate abortions. States could not ban abortions of any kind wholesale--there had to be an exception for the protection of the mother's life and health. Roe is the starting point, and it was pretty broad. So, abortion rights are not expanding from there--the trend has been to try to limit abortions by banning procedures or making the woman jump through so many hoops that it becomes non-feasible. If anything, this shows that fundies are using the piece-by-piece approach to chip away at rights and threaten personal freedoms.


I'm the kind of person though, which just makes me think of them, who can let alot of things slide until you put something directly in my way or back me into a corner. If you avoid doing all these things with me, you can get away with alot more even if just in the matter of friendships.

To me, you seem to be saying that as long as you don't have to confront what's going on in the world, you're ok with it. Then when you realize what is happening, then you get stubborn and resist just on principle. Is that what you mean?

[Adora]

*looks around* Christians suppressing the religion of others in that time succeeded?
You never put a time-frame on the success. Yes, they succeeded for a little while, and then got their asses re-whooped.

If you want a longer (and better) success story, go with the Japanese one.

I just think that they feel threatened.
OF COURSE THE FEEL THREATENED! Every fucking conservative Backlash creates an aura of false-persecution! It's the only way the fucking mindset can work! Sheesh. *head meet wall*

[Sweetie]

OF COURSE THE FEEL THREATENED! Every fucking conservative Backlash creates an aura of false-persecution!

My question then would be, are you certain it's false? I don't really see that it is, especially coming from people who are so against them that they can't even consider them persons worthy of speaking to or understanding. I mean really, are you certain that some here wouldn't be the first to pick up the gun, better off dead then others having to suffer them breathing the same air as them and ruining their political agendas and goals? Keep in mind, I don't like Fundamentalism anymore than you do but then again, I don't like fundamentalism of any type.

*head meet wall*

You should do that a bit more often. :fuming: :wink:

I was just kidding, but it is a bit annoying being spoken to as if you have such a good point that you don't really need to prove it and others are just FUCKING STUPIDHEADS unlike you.

[Darren]

Can anybody name a place and time not of the present where suppressing religious freedom has succeeded? It didn't work for Russia at least, I don't know who else I would name. What does history have to teach in this regard? Civil wars happen.

Yes - medieval Muslim Spain - the caliphate of Cordoba with its religious tolerance and subsequent flowering of especially Islamic and Judaic culture and its advancement of the arts and sciences. Finally smashed in 1492, tolerance gave way to Islamophobia and Judeophobia in the form of the infamous Spanish Inquisition. Thus passed one of medieval Europe's finest civilizations.

:spanishinq:

[Adora]

My question then would be, are you certain it's false?
In my country, yes. Conservative writers such as Andrew Bolt bitch and moan about the "Liberal press" in their articles, that are syndicated to most major newspapers in the country. The same Baby Boomer conservative Backlash wankers appear on nostalgia shows over and over again, and any progressive voices are quickly dismissed as "misguided" or "idealistic" or "part of the youth culture".

Fundamentalist Christianity is allowed to pose as a political party, and succeed in getting into Australian politics (in a very fucking powerful position), and yet groups like the Australian Democrats can't even get a member voted into the senate. Tony Abbot (an ex-priest) raises the conservative stance on abortions (that they're "for convenience" and "a national tragedy") and suddnely the whole country has to start talking about it (even though it's very difficult to get an abortion in many areas of the country, they cost a lot of money, and there is still a social stigma attached that can negatively impact on some women who do get them, because of wankers like Mr Abbot).

In the US, your country is being run by one, imposing his and his posse's morals on the rest of the world through the Global Gag Rule, which destroys women's health at the most basic level. Last time I checked, the amount of people who affiliate themselves with a Born Again/Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian religion in the US was around the 60-70% mark. Supreme Court, anyone? It's facts like this that make me very glad

Even in countries outside the US, whenever any kind of social or cultural conflict arises, the first to cry foul are the conservatives (Christian, usually). The entire Theo Van Gogh murder kerfuffle currently affecting the Netherlands is a perfect example.

I mean really, are you certain that some here wouldn't be the first to pick up the gun, better off dead then others having to suffer them breathing the same air as them and ruining their political agendas and goals?
I don't understand the question. Who are the "some people here" and who are the "others", and who is breathing which one's air and controlling/ruining what? I want specifics.

This is how Conservatism works, anyway. An enemy, or a group of enemies, are set up as those who are trying to "take away" something that is nothing except a sense of false-nostalgia for "the good old days" which never existed. Conservatism works in the basic premise of an idealised utopia which the world/country/society is slowly growing farther and farther from, even though anyone with the mildest interest in history can tell you it never existed. The enemy/enemies are then vilified and attacked for being the people to take this false ideology away from people. Whether they're gays, Jews, non-Christians, Christians, people of a different race from the dominant one in the country, women/ "feminists", civil-rights movements, human rights movements, young people, old people, middle-class, lower-class, upper-class, witches, Muslims, Buddhists, subversives, Saddam Hussein, France, "The Liberal Press", whatever.

[godfry n. glad]

Can anybody name a place and time not of the present where suppressing religious freedom has succeeded? It didn't work for Russia at least, I don't know who else I would name. What does history have to teach in this regard? Civil wars happen.

Yes - medieval Muslim Spain - the caliphate of Cordoba with its religious tolerance and subsequent flowering of especially Islamic and Judaic culture and its advancement of the arts and sciences. Finally smashed in 1492, tolerance gave way to Islamophobia and Judeophobia in the form of the infamous Spanish Inquisition. Thus passed one of medieval Europe's finest civilizations.

:spanishinq:

Indeed, "religious freedom" is a fairly modern concept. Religious tolerance has made appearances throughout human history but the prevailing tendency has been one of "orthodoxy" enforcing "correct belief" against "heretics". The Roman Catholic church had an ongoing interest in suppressing dissent, as does almost any established religion (one recognized as "official" by civil and military leaders). I would suspect that in the span of human religious activity that "religious freedom" has been a rare thing indeed.

godfry

[Sweetie]

Sorry I haven't responded, I've been just literally pysically exhausted, sorry that I snapped at you Adora.

All I know is that when I look at the situation, I think Communism, which is completely secular, has been a terrible force in our world, even possibly more so according to the death tolls than the "evil" or "danger" some see in the opposition by religious parties.

All I was thinking then and all I'm thinking now is that we need:

a) diplomacy
b) empathy
c) compromise
d) strategy
e) intelligence

Each of which I think is lacking on both sides within the polarization in America today, both the religious Fundamentalists and the non-religious Fundamentalists. I think people in general are having problems in all of these five areas and I think being adept in all those five areas are worthy goals.

I think diplomacy, make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital. I think empathy is sorely lacking, I think everybody is unwilling to compromise, on both sides it's like "this way or the highway" and I don't think anybody is happy when faced with such an ultimatum. I think there is a lack of the realization that while some are arguing it "should be" this way, they fail to note that it has not been this way and perhaps one should be a little more gentle with trying to take the candy away from the baby instead of merely saying well, the baby should never have had that candy in the first place which does no one any good, and that's not even agreeing that the one taking the candy is in the right. I think strategy, because of the first three suffers and I think there is an incredible lack of intelligence because of the lack of the above four which makes the ones who claim to be more intelligent the ones with mud on their face. That's just a glimpse from my perspective at the moment. I could be wrong about all of these things and I in no way mean to project any of this onto anyone in particular, just a general overview from my eyes to others.

[Adora]

Um...

Call me nuts, and living-on-the-other-side-of-the-Pacific and all, but since when should anyone in a country consider fellow citizens "enemies"? "Supporters of competing ideologies" or possibly "Supporters of Political rivals" sure, but right-out enemies?

If you're talking in those terms, you've already bought into the Fundamentalist ideologies, and cries of moderation and compromise sound a bit empty. And for the record, such ideologies are created by conservative/fundamentalist ideologies, for the "faux persecution" reasons I stated above.

All I know is that when I look at the situation, I think Communism, which is completely secular, has been a terrible force in our world, even possibly more so according to the death tolls than the "evil" or "danger" some see in the opposition by religious parties.
And it's also been a wonderful force for good in some countries as well. Y'know, rights for the worker, co-ops, and all that? In many places, these are the only things standing in the way of negative economic globalisation.

If you're going to talk about any economic ideology (like any kind of ideology at all) you have to take in the full picture.

In this case, Capitalism is just as evil. Ukraine, at present? Child labour? Destruction of the environment to take rare resources illegally? Destruction of the health of persecuted or ignored minorities because the government doesn't want to touch big-business? Chile, anyone? Y'know, The Real September 11th!?

And what the hell does the fact ideal communism being secular have to do with anything? Are we going to get into the stupid "OMG Stalin was teh atheist so all atheists = teh EVOL!!1" argument or something?

AND, for the record, exactly what position are you coming at this from Sweetie? What neutral position are you claiming that you can make such claims as "I think there is an incredible lack of intelligence because of the lack of the above four which makes the ones who claim to be more intelligent the ones with mud on their face."? Because frankly, your comments about Communism speak volumes in regards to "Intelligence".

[Sweetie]

Um...

Call me nuts, and living-on-the-other-side-of-the-Pacific and all, but since when should anyone in a country consider fellow citizens "enemies"? "Supporters of competing ideologies" or possibly "Supporters of Political rivals" sure, but right-out enemies?

I don't call anybody an enemy. Did I say that? I don't recall saying such from my perspective and I don't think it so but I think, as I have said, that many feel like it is so and I have no idea why I'm bothering to gently explain because this person, who we all know now why is still a virgin, and yes, I'm taking back my apology, will just fuck it up and freak out.

Do you have any friends? You know this has to die in you before you can get anything meaningful out of life, this antagonistic superiority type of complex. Holy fuck. I remember why I'm not full-out bi-sexual, I can't stand many women any more than the average man can. I deliberately seek to kill in myself anything resembling what you are putting out, and if you find any remnants just remind me, I'll go back under the knife. You think you are gender confused? I think you are unfortunately very female.

[Adora]

Did I say that?
Yes actually, you did.

...make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital.
See? You're buying into the ideology by using the same rhetoric as the extremeists on either side (which you express a dislike of).

who we all know now why is still a virgin
How old are you? 13? Because I haven't heard anyone try this little ditty since I was that age. Anyone who's read the thread on this board about lying knows that there is a big difference between how I act online and how I act offline. So, really, if we're going to be pathetic little schoolgirls throwing such ridiculous insults at each other, let's get some facts straight, kay? Because obviously, from this...

You think you are gender confused?
You're either very confused yourself, or maybe you can't tell the difference between "dissatisfaction" and "confusion". Neither would surprise me.

Maybe I should just point out something grown ups do: We criticise arguments. I know it might be hard for you to comprehend this, but just because I disagree with your thoughts on "secular" Communism, religious persecution throughout the ages, and the language you are using which is the opposite to the position you are promoting, doesn't mean I'm trying to threaten your bisexuality. Now, if you can't play with the big-boys, we'll put you back in your playpen, or you can grow up, and make a proper reply to my arguments, without using pathetic distraction tactics.

[wildernesse]

Sweetie,

Your last post is out and out ridiculous, as well as hard to read. Is it really so difficult to take being challenged? As for the insults against all women--honey, look in the mirror. If you're not acting like a pissed-off catty cheerleader, I don't know who is.

[livius drusus]

Amen.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie,

Your last post is out and out ridiculous, as well as hard to read. Is it really so difficult to take being challenged?

Challenged is fine. When everything is twisted and then thrown back in an antagonistic know-it-all way, that's a little different. I love discussion, but how you can have a discussion with someone who is always right?

As for the insults against all women--honey, look in the mirror.

Not all women, I said many, go back and check. Men don't often get bitchy, they get silent. Men, like visciousmemories and seebs for instance, are more willing to be objective and not speak before they have something worthwhile to say, it's comforting when the things I don't like about my own nature come to the surface.

If you're not acting like a pissed-off catty cheerleader, I don't know who is.

No denials here, like I said, I hate being bitchy. Communication requires listening skills as well as verbal skills. My main point is that Fundamentalists feel threatened, and that I think there is a sense of us against them, enemy type factions. I never said there were enemies and I never said I thought there were enemies among many other things that I didn't say. It's a simple yes or no type question. Do you think they feel threatened? You can't say the same from the opposite side, they don't feel threatened, I get the sense that they feel they have to silence and castrate them at any cost and are disappointed in their inability to do so.

And FYI, I'm Canuckian aka "Peacekeeper."

[Sweetie]

Did I say that?
Yes actually, you did.

You think what you quoted says that?

...make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital.
See? You're buying into the ideology by using the same rhetoric as the extremeists on either side (which you express a dislike of).

For fuck's sake, are you kidding me? That's how you interpreted that and that's your response, that such a thing as diplomacy and respect is rhetoric? Isn't that the conditions for any meaningful human interaction? I don't know, maybe I'm living in a parrallel universe, not one where you can treat people like dirt, refuse to set a groundwork of mutual respect and expect to get anywhere and don't allow for the conditions that make positive changes without war.

How old are you? 13? Because I haven't heard anyone try this little ditty since I was that age. Anyone who's read the thread on this board about lying knows that there is a big difference between how I act online and how I act offline.

Like fucking what? You have decided that there is way to act that is less than unsufferable and you prefer to inflict your insufferability on us? How nice.

Maybe I should just point out something grown ups do: We criticise arguments.

Yes, I do that just as well as anybody does but I make some attempt to get it right objectively speaking instead of just filtering it through my prejudices and preconceived notions first.

I know it might be hard for you to comprehend this, but just because I disagree with your thoughts on "secular" Communism,

I never said anything about secular communism other than it was a force in a world with a very large death toll. What's the point? What are you trying to infer by my bringing up a very real fact? All it's meant to say is that any extreme everpervasive ideology is dangerous, not necessarily just the religious right. I don't personally think that a utopia is possible, where each side gets what they want. I think compromise is the only way to go.

religious persecution throughout the ages,

I didn't even go there with you, if you noticed?

and the language you are using which is the opposite to the position you are promoting,

Holy Fuck once again. Is this a problem, do you think, when you are so certain that you are right even though you aren't really dealing with what is actually said or meant?

doesn't mean I'm trying to threaten your bisexuality.

I don't know if this is the clearest case of such a thing, but this is just totally twisted and taken out of context, etc. I'm really expected to sit here and wade through this twisted mass and am considered unwilling to meet a challenge if I don't? Gawd.

Now, if you can't play with the big-boys, we'll put you back in your playpen, or you can grow up, and make a proper reply to my arguments, without using pathetic distraction tactics.

[Sweetie]

The problem is, I find from my experience, is that when dealing with a twisted mass, it takes alot of work. You have to back-step, reiterate and clarify, you have to do whatever explaining it takes to show that it was twisted and then to show what was really being meant and if more than one thing is twisted, I mean, it's just difficult. That requires, however, a willingness on the other party to do so which is usually not there. What happens if someone is unwilling to admit that they got something wrong or that they are prejudiced and jumping to conclusions is that their defense mechanisms start working, if they are unwilling then we get defensiveness and generally, just another twisted mass of justifications. When I encounter it, it generally requires more work and more patience than I am willing to put in to deal with justification after justification after justification, I usually just decide that I am wasting my breath and it's not worth it, that's just me, that's my explanation if it matters. I'm content to have others disagree with me, I'm content with having made an attempt to say something and having failed.

[viscousmemories]

The problem is, I find from my experience, is that when dealing with a twisted mass, it takes alot of work. You have to back-step, reiterate and clarify, you have to do whatever explaining it takes to show that it was twisted and then to show what was really being meant and if more than one thing is twisted, I mean, it's just difficult. That requires, however, a willingness on the other party to do so which is usually not there. What happens if someone is unwilling to admit that they got something wrong or that they are prejudiced and jumping to conclusions is that their defense mechanisms start working, if they are unwilling then we get defensiveness and generally, just another twisted mass of justifications.
I don't really get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that you have presented lucent, consistent and reasonable arguments in this thread and others have turned it into a twisted mass that you're now struggling to sort out? Because honestly your posts seem to have been largely disconnected and stream of consciousness from the beginning that others have been trying to sort out. Anyway I admit that I don't have the energy or inclination to try to work out what your point is, but that is due more to your unapologetic nastiness to Adora than your disjointed posts.

[Sweetie]

I don't really get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that you have presented lucent, consistent and reasonable arguments in this thread and others have turned it into a twisted mass that you're now struggling to sort out?

My thoughts are non-linear. I can start at wherever and end up wherever, it is a bit much though I can put them all together it's just very large. Lucid and continuous, I don't know, I thought so but I have been tired, like I said.

Want to start again?

Because honestly your posts seem to have been largely disconnected and stream of consciousness from the beginning that others have been trying to sort out.

Eh, sorry about that if that's how they were.

Anyway I admit that I don't have the energy or inclination to try to work out what your point is, but that is due more to your unapologetic nastiness to Adora than your disjointed posts.

Well, no I won't apologize to Adora. Her treatment of seebs and his wife's life's work (he is still offended btw), her nastiness in several threads, her consistent antagonism throughout has just culminated for me and I've brought preconceived notions about her and her antagonism to this thread after having seen it so much so that I won't apologize. She strikes me as the type that very rarely would ever entertain the notion that they could be wrong. She likes to stir up shit and play games, she is free to, I won't play and I won't be treated, like I said, like a FUCKING STUPIDHEAD. I have lost sympathy as far as that goes. That may change, but it's not at present. Say the same for me, that's fine, I just at present think that that notion of Adora is justified. Prove me wrong, what have I missed?

[viscousmemories]

I have lost sympathy as far as that goes. That may change, but it's not at present. Say the same for me, that's fine, I just at present think that that notion of Adora is justified. Prove me wrong, what have I missed?
I don't really care what you think of Adora. Your opinion is what it is, I'm not going to try to prove you wrong. My purely subjective opinion is that your comments to her were more vicious and cruel than anything I've seen her say to anyone else.

As far as the topic of the thread I'm curious why you didn't respond to any of the good points made by wildernesse, eldar and dantonac on the first page. I know you explained that you were exhausted, but then you go on to post something that seems only tangentially related to the thread you started. That's what I mean about it being disjointed and such. I'm really not sure what topic you're interested in discussing here, and why you didn't address most of the substantive responses to your OP.

[Sweetie]

I don't really care what you think of Adora. Your opinion is what it is, I'm not going to try to prove you wrong. My purely subjective opinion is that your comments to her were more vicious and cruel than anything I've seen her say to anyone else.

Oh, yes, I do have a viper's tongue and I can be very cruel and also very sensitive, it's actually quite shocking how sensitive I really am. From my perspective, since I think my opinion of her is justified, I thought she needed to be taken down a peg or two. That's the least damage I could inflict, in a cat/hate fight, I'd go for the throat. You were talking about instinct and kill or be killed in another thread, right? It exists, especially among females, but if we are fighters we aim for the heart or the psyche, the worst damage. I had sought to kill that within in myself, or at least tamp it down and put other principles in place. If I tell her that antagonism and superiority needs to die in oneself before they can have a meaningful existence, or I would say in order to be happy, I speak from experience. I wasn't all bad, but I was the type "You shall know the difference now that I am back again," and "you really want to cross me?" I don't think that way any longer, and I try to find productive uses for my manipulative "powers", lol, and I want to be happy. I know that I'm not happy being antagonistic or being antagonized.

As far as the topic of the thread I'm curious why you didn't respond to any of the good points made by wildernesse, eldar and dantonac

Datonac's post I thought spoke for itself. I don't recall the others. Adora got my back up early on though, so she got my focus on her, perhaps that's what she wanted. Perhaps she thinks "you shall know the difference now that I am [here]"

I know you explained that you were exhausted, but then you go on to post something that seems only tangentially related to the thread you started.

Oh, no, it isn't only tangibly related. It was actually what I intended and what the OP was about. We can flesh it out if you want. If I'm not antagonistic and you don't antagonize me on purpose, or treat me like I'm lacking necessary brain cells, which I don't think you would and you haven't as of yet either, that's not why I said so, then maybe we could have a meaningful exchange of ideas. Actually, this last sentence is more the point of the whole thread, to be honest, the necessary groundwork to real communication where people can feel comfortable speaking and where people care and listen back and forth. Obviously I can have difficulty communicating my thoughts.

That's what I mean about it being disjointed and such. I'm really not sure what topic you're interested in discussing here, and why you didn't address most of the substantive responses to your OP.

[Sweetie]

In fact, me and her are probably very much alike. :wink:

[viscousmemories]

Oh, no, it isn't only tangibly related. It was actually what I intended and what the OP was about. We can flesh it out if you want.
I guess I'm not really sure how much there is to flesh out, really. Perhaps I'm not really getting the gist of your posts, but what you seem to be arguing for appears self-evident to me. I mean, of course if everyone were more diplomatic, empathetic, willing to compromise, intelligent, and strategic it would be easier to reach consensus in politics. Unfortunately as you allude to, there are all kinds of extremists who fail in all those areas and want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

I think diplomacy, make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital. I think empathy is sorely lacking, I think everybody is unwilling to compromise, on both sides it's like "this way or the highway" and I don't think anybody is happy when faced with such an ultimatum.
I'm not sure how much compromise is possible when you're dealing with people who have a blatant disregard for your rights. If I was gay and wanted to get married I would not be willing to compromise to any degree with people who think I shouldn't have that right.

[seebs]

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

[Goliath]

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

:eyebrow2: Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

[wildernesse]

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

:eyebrow2: Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

I'm sure seebs will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was just making the point that there are some people with whom there is no chance of compromise. This is the same point vm makes when he says:
I'm not sure how much compromise is possible when you're dealing with people who have a blatant disregard for your rights. If I was gay and wanted to get married I would not be willing to compromise to any degree with people who think I shouldn't have that right.

[LadyShea]

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

:eyebrow2: Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

I think he was saying that non-fundies trying to compromise with the fundamentalists was akin to blacks trying to compromise with the KKK.

[seebs]

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

:eyebrow2: Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

I was about to agree with you, but it occurs to me that there are probably places where that actually is true.

Actually, my main point was that gays don't have much chance for compromising with Westboro Baptist, for instance.

You can't expect everyone to reach a "compromise" with someone who sincerely believes that the only chance America has of "reclaiming God's blessings" is to execute all gay people.

The thing is, though, I think it's the people who are backlashing right now who started out advocating positions with which there is no meaningful compromise.

If the "compromise" does not involve both parties free to live their lives without too much interference, it's not a real compromise. I guess... If you're talking about extra privileges and power, you can compromise those. But when it gets down to "the right to live in peace", that's not something you have any way to compromise.

I guess... Finding a middle ground is reasonable over things that can be divided. But there comes a point where one side is holding a position and expecting the other to keep compromising repeatedly, and that can be a problem. There are also points which I don't think can be reasonably compromised on.

[seebs]

I'm sure seebs will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was just making the point that there are some people with whom there is no chance of compromise. This is the same point vm makes when he says:
I'm not sure how much compromise is possible when you're dealing with people who have a blatant disregard for your rights. If I was gay and wanted to get married I would not be willing to compromise to any degree with people who think I shouldn't have that right.

Exactly. And you'll note that "civil unions" are an attempt to make that compromise... Because people are really, really, trying to compromise.

But when the option on one side of the table is "how about you let me live", and the other side is saying "no, I think we'll kill you", it's not clear that "compromise" is what society needs.

[Adora]

That's how you interpreted that and that's your response, that such a thing as diplomacy and respect is rhetoric?
Okay, I just have to ask: What the fuck are you on? No, seriously hun, where did I say diplomacy and respect is rhetoric? Where, exactly, please? I didn't say it anywhere. I simply said that you used the terms in your post you are claiming to reject as you distance yourself from extremism. You used the word "enemy". Not "rival", not "political opponent supporters", not "supporters of a competitive ideology", but "enemy".

You have decided that there is way to act that is less than unsufferable (sic) and you prefer to inflict your insufferability on us?
Er, I don't know what planet you come from, but since when was "criticising arguments" counted as "insufferable"?

I never said anything about secular communism other than it was a force in a world with a very large death toll. What's the point?
That it is also a force in the world with a very large "toll" of benefits, as anyone who can read will be able to point out to you.

What are you trying to infer by my bringing up a very real fact?
That you should not just focus on one side of an event. There have been more wars waged in the name of deities throughout history (even if the real reasons is otherwise) than in the name of any secular ideology. How about that fact? But that's right, there's also the fact that in hundreds of countries around the world today, right now, there are religious groups fighting for social justice and human rights, for equality for all groups and genders, and for political justice and equality. And that's not even taking in the scope of the benefits some aspects of religion have brought to people around the world through histroy. Now, if I wanted to be stupid, I could just get up and say "God has been the greatest cause of war and death and destruction in the world", just as you did about Communism, and ignore the bigger picture.

But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

I didn't even go there with you, if you noticed?
Do you have as many problems following a thread as you do making a sentence? You started this thread with some stupid statement regarding the "imprisonment" of the Pope by Moussoulini. False or otherwise, that's what we call religious persecution. You Went There. And you ignored people's posts because they didn't fit with what you were trying to "prove".

Is this a problem, do you think, when you are so certain that you are right even though you aren't really dealing with what is actually said or meant?
I know what was said and meant. I'm simply being semantic, because one of the ways to roll back people's ideologies is through changing semantics. Well, at least for us in the grown-up world, anyway. You also used the extreme words like "battle", "abhorrent", and you make stupid assumptions about people using the Ten Commandments as a "code of honour" (strong words, dem) to live by.

So maybe this is just all a very badly put together act where you are trying to act like a Fundamentalist to get into their mindset and illustrate some perceived social conflict. In that case, go back to acting school.

Her treatment of seebs and his wife's life's work (he is still offended btw)
First of all: If this is true, that's not my problem.

Second: I was always under the impression seebs was very cool about the whole thing (as in: he actually showed up to I Wank and posted, and everyone loved him - well, mostly everyone, except the ones who couldn't take a joke - and never expressed that he was still "offended" by it to me, which I expect a man of his calibre to do in that situation), and seebs wife didn't much give a damn in the end because it increased the readership of the comic by some numbers. I may be wrong, but in this case, you're certainly not qualified to make comments about it, and if I am wrong, I would like to be told so by someone who may actually know what seebs is thinking... like the man himself.

Oh, yes, I do have a viper's tongue
...

Keep telling yourself that dear.

That's the least damage I could inflict, in a cat/hate fight, I'd go for the throat. You were talking about instinct and kill or be killed in another thread, right? It exists, especially among females, but if we are fighters we aim for the heart or the psyche, the worst damage.
Jesusjabberfuck... I'll say it again, for emphasis...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON!? You are possibly the most pathetic, childish, inflated-ego, language-skills-lacking forum poster I have encountered in a very long time, and I hang out on anime forums (teenage anime fanboys: nuff said). You talk about lack of extremeism, and yet spout utterly pathetic shite like this?

Seriously bitch, are you for real? Or is this all an act? Please tell me it's an act.

I thought she needed to be taken down a peg or two.
Rrrright, and your acting like a pathetic child and someone with English problems truly hurt me Sweetie. No! I'm being serious for totally real. Look, here's an emo tear, just for you ._; NO I'M REALLY CRYING FOR REAL THIS TIME!!!1one

People who can "take me down a peg" are people with intelligence, who can form an argument and answer counter-arguments, address raised issues and not act like an idiot when someone does raise a counter-argument. Ie- not you.

I'll make this clear, shall I? Sweetie, in this thread, you have raised the same questions over and over again, and people have offered answers for your questions, and you have either a) dismissed them without telling why or offering constructive discussion on the dismissal or b) ignored them completely. You avoid the issue if it doesn't suit you, and use distraction tactics if someone pulls you up on it. You talk about "listening" and "verbal skills" as being fundamental to human communication and yet you are severely lacking in both. You blow off the fucking rocket over simple criticisms I made regarding your misleading comments about Communism, which, in the grand scheme of cristicisms & "incidents" I've had against with on this board, were pussy-English-curry-mild. But you seem like the type of person who has trouble fitting her head in the car door, so I guess you'll have trouble reading this floating around in the stratosphere and all that.

[godfry n. glad]

Then there's the problem of deciding that "compromise" is the expected means of reaching agreement. The paradigm of conflict resolution. The result can be that one or more of the parties attempting to reach a compromise overstates its position in such a manner that they can deal away unimportant details while maintaining their uncompromising stance. Then, they can claim to have compromised. Of course, when both sides use this approach, the status quo would seem to be maintained.

It seems to me that there are times to compromise and times to not compromise.

It also depends upon the nature of what is presented as a "compromise". Is it a true compromise, or a raw deal being shoved down the throat and having it called a compromise in an imbalance of power? A guess you could call it a compromise under duress.

Is it a "compromise" to refuse to provide arms to both sides in a conflict, when it is known another power provides arms to one side? Or is that an "uncompromising" stand? Perhaps it's a "compromise" to sell to both sides?

Why is compromise necessarily a good thing?

What would Boulding say?

godfry

[Goliath]

I was about to agree with you, but it occurs to me that there are probably places where that actually is true.


I don't know whether to burst out laughing or let out a sad sigh. Are you actually that out of touch with reality? You people practically run the god damn planet, and by December 31, 2006 you'll more than likely have the US delivered to you--officially and completely--on a Silver Platter in the form of this country officially becoming a Theocracy.

When will it become obvious to you people that too many of you have a persecution complex? Will it end if/when atheists are hauled off to death camps by the thousands until there are none of us left? Or would it take something less drastic?

Sorry to everyone for the derailment, by the way.



Actually, my main point was that gays don't have much chance for compromising with Westboro Baptist, for instance.

You can't expect everyone to reach a "compromise" with someone who sincerely believes that the only chance America has of "reclaiming God's blessings" is to execute all gay people.



Agreed.

[Goliath]

Because people are really, really, trying to compromise.

Who? No, seriously. Who?

[seebs]

I don't know whether to burst out laughing or let out a sad sigh. Are you actually that out of touch with reality? You people practically run the god damn planet, and by December 31, 2006 you'll more than likely have the US delivered to you--officially and completely--on a Silver Platter in the form of this country officially becoming a Theocracy.

Er, that's not "us". That's them other guys. :P

But seriously, there are parts of the world (Muslim nations, and some portions of China in the recent past) where "being Christian" is pretty much a capital crime.

So, I agree with you about most of the world, but there are some exceptions. Not many. Some.

[seebs]

Because people are really, really, trying to compromise.

Who? No, seriously. Who?

Many people who are advocating gay rights are willing to accept "civil unions" on the grounds that, while separate but unequal is not all that much good, they feel it's more important that gay couples have the practical legal rights that other couples have, than that the terminology be the same.

Likewise, some people opposed to gay marriage are willing to extend the practical legal rights, as long as the word "marriage" isn't used for something they don't think is a real "marriage".

It's an attempt by members of both sides to compromise.

[livius drusus]

I don't know whether to burst out laughing or let out a sad sigh. Are you actually that out of touch with reality? You people practically run the god damn planet, and by December 31, 2006 you'll more than likely have the US delivered to you--officially and completely--on a Silver Platter in the form of this country officially becoming a Theocracy.

When will it become obvious to you people that too many of you have a persecution complex? Will it end if/when atheists are hauled off to death camps by the thousands until there are none of us left? Or would it take something less drastic?

You people? I've told you before I dislike the way you fling that term around and your use of it here is a good example of why. It's inevitably pejorative, you know. I don't recall you ever using it to say something like "you people are swell". It just reeks of hasty generalization, which is bourne out in its racist past (remember when Ross Perot got in trouble for addressing an NAACP audience as "you people"?).

So who are you talking to? Who is the "you people" of whom seebs is presumably one?

Sorry to everyone for the derailment, by the way.

The holocaust rhetoric is far worse than the derailment. As for this country becoming a theocracy in two years, I'd be interested to see you make that argument in a Politics thread.

Who? No, seriously. Who?

John Kerry leaps to mind.

[Goliath]

Er, that's not "us". That's them other guys. :P


So you're not a xian anymore?


But seriously, there are parts of the world (Muslim nations, and some portions of China in the recent past) where "being Christian" is pretty much a capital crime.

I've seen these same, tired, unsupported assertions made by xians many, many times before.... :yawn:

[Goliath]

I've told you before I dislike the way you fling that term around

Frankly, liv, I doubt that it's possible for me to do anything to make you completely happy with me (much less happy with me in general). I keep getting this overwhelming feeling that you'll continue to despise me for my hatred for xianity until I convert. Sorry, but that won't happen. Ever. I'd rather die than become a xian.

It's inevitably pejorative, you know.

Not really. I meant "xians" by "you people", as I was addressing seebs. Sorry for being unclear.




I don't recall you ever using it to say something like "you people are swell".



How is that in any way relevant to the discussion at hand?



As for this country becoming a theocracy in two years, I'd be interested to see you make that argument in a Politics thread.



Try again. That's not what I said.

However, upon a reread, I should've said "probably" rather than "more than likely". My apologies.

John Kerry leaps to mind.

Fair enough. I guess I shouldn't have asked.

[livius drusus]

I keep getting this overwhelming feeling that you'll continue to despise me for my hatred for xianity until I convert.

There is not one word in that sentence that is accurate. Your feeling is wrong and is an insult to my intelligence, my motivations, and my communications with you.



I don't recall you ever using it to say something like "you people are swell".


How is that in any way relevant to the discussion at hand?

I take issue with your use of "you people". I've raised it here because your derailment rant was a good instance of why I take issue with it. If you are uninterested in examining your pejorative use of it, then we'll simply leave it at that.

[wildernesse]

As for this country becoming a theocracy in two years, I'd be interested to see you make that argument in a Politics thread.



Try again. That's not what I said.

However, upon a reread, I should've said "probably" rather than "more than likely". My apologies.

Hey, Goliath--

Just a random derailing comment from moi. I think that restating what you did actually say (the more than likely part), in addition to saying that there has been a misunderstanding (the That's not what I said. part) is really helpful because it shows me, for example, the particular distinction that you are making that I am not when I read your comments. I think that if you restated what you did say, even where you think that it should be obvious, then things might not escalate like they sometimes do. Just my two cents.

[Goliath]

Your feeling is wrong and is an insult to my intelligence, my motivations, and my communications with you.


Then I'm extremely sorry to have insulted you. Such was not my intention. I'd try to rephrase how I feel, but I'll stop, as I don't want to risk further insult and miscommunication.



I take issue with your use of "you people".



Is it because I was (unintentionally) being unclear? Should I have said "you xians" instead?

[godfry n. glad]

I don't know whether to burst out laughing or let out a sad sigh. Are you actually that out of touch with reality? You people practically run the god damn planet, and by December 31, 2006 you'll more than likely have the US delivered to you--officially and completely--on a Silver Platter in the form of this country officially becoming a Theocracy.


Wow. Two years? That's all?

Officially? What's that entail?

Can I quote you on that?

godfry

hey, seebs, will you hide us in your basement?

[Goliath]

Wow. Two years? That's all?

Probably, yes.



Officially? What's that entail?



The rewriting of the Constitution to make the US a Theocracy instead of a Constitutional Republic. What did you think it would entail?



Can I quote you on that?



Sure, as long as you understand what I've written and haven't read a single thing into it.

hey, seebs, will you hide us in your basement?

:eyebrow2: Ummmm.....if xians end up dragging us to death camps, then why would you ask one of them to hide you?

[Goliath]

Hey, Goliath--

Just a random derailing comment from moi. I think that restating what you did actually say (the more than likely part), in addition to saying that there has been a misunderstanding (the That's not what I said. part) is really helpful because it shows me, for example, the particular distinction that you are making that I am not when I read your comments. I think that if you restated what you did say, even where you think that it should be obvious, then things might not escalate like they sometimes do. Just my two cents.

Thanks, wildy.

[seebs]

Er, that's not "us". That's them other guys. :P


So you're not a xian anymore?

Sure I am. But I will have no part of theocracy, and I will oppose it vehemently.

Well, okay. If Jesus comes back, He's allowed to run the government.

Any one else who merely claims to speak for Him, though... No. Not interested.

I've seen these same, tired, unsupported assertions made by xians many, many times before.... :yawn:

Hmm. Well, I suppose it's theoretically possible that it's false. I know that, when I was in China, Christianity was a very underground thing, and that the Chinese shoot people for being dissidents.

[seebs]

hey, seebs, will you hide us in your basement?

I'll need a bigger basement, but sure.

[Goliath]

But I will have no part of theocracy, and I will oppose it vehemently.

And I'm supposed to give a shit because........? Or, put less bluntly, what difference would it make what you'd think if this country becomes a Theocracy?



Well, okay. If Jesus comes back, He's allowed to run the government.



And if that were to happen, I'd try to kill Jesus.



I know that, when I was in China, Christianity was a very underground thing, and that the Chinese shoot people for being dissidents.

Okay, any non-anecdotal evidence?

[seebs]

Just a random derailing comment from moi. I think that restating what you did actually say (the more than likely part), in addition to saying that there has been a misunderstanding (the That's not what I said. part) is really helpful because it shows me, for example, the particular distinction that you are making that I am not when I read your comments. I think that if you restated what you did say, even where you think that it should be obvious, then things might not escalate like they sometimes do. Just my two cents.

... Yes! That would help greatly.

You know the drill, I assume. A good problem report should indicate what you did, what you expected, and what you got. With communications, you should try to articulate:
1. What you think someone thinks you said (with the acknowledgement that it's guessing)
2. What you meant, rephrased differently to try to avoid cycles.
3. An attempt to describe, as carefully as possible, the distinction.

[seebs]

But I will have no part of theocracy, and I will oppose it vehemently.

And I'm supposed to give a shit because........?

Because, while I'm Christian, I'm not part of the group of people who want a theocracy. It's a subset of Christians, and not all Christians agree with them.

And if that were to happen, I'd try to kill him.

Oh, come on. You could give Him a month or two. I wouldn't try to kill Him without a careful consideration of the budget plan. If the current food stamp system could be replaced by manna from heaven for poor people, I think I'd probably be pretty happy with that.

I know that, when I was in China, Christianity was a very underground thing, and that the Chinese shoot people for being dissidents.

Okay, any non-anecdotal evidence?

Not off the top of my head. I know that missionaries get killed occasionally, but I can't prove that it's "for being Christian" as opposed to "for being really pushy" or "for living in a war zone".

[Goliath]

Because, while I'm Christian, I'm not part of the group of people who want a theocracy.


So what?



Oh, come on. You could give Him a month or two.

That hate-mongering demon?! No fucking way. I'd sooner vote for Osama Bin Laden to be President than Jesus (and no, I'm not kidding).



I wouldn't try to kill Him without a careful consideration of the budget plan.



I wouldn't give a crap about Jesus' budget plan...his "all unbelievers will suffer eternally" policy is one of the many reasons why I would want to kill Jesus if he came back and tried to run the country (or the world, for that matter).

Not off the top of my head. I know that missionaries get killed occasionally, but I can't prove that it's "for being Christian" as opposed to "for being really pushy" or "for living in a war zone".

Yep, the same assertions I've heard before. It'd be interesting to see if xians are actually systematically oppressed in any part of the world.

[seebs]

Because, while I'm Christian, I'm not part of the group of people who want a theocracy.


So what?

So I suspect we must be talking past each other. I'm not sure where to go with that.

I wouldn't give a crap about Jesus' budget plan...his "all unbelievers will suffer eternally" policy is one of the many reasons why I would want to kill Jesus if he came back and tried to run the country (or the world, for that matter).

Hmm. I guess, if I interpreted those passages that way, I would probably agree. :)

Yep, the same assertions I've heard before. It'd be interesting to see if xians are actually systematically oppressed in any part of the world.

Yeah, actually. Not sure where to go for fair research information.

[Goliath]

Hmm. I guess, if I interpreted those passages that way, I would probably agree. :)

Isn't the bible supposed to be a book that magically interprets itself, or some such bullshit? :rolleye1:

[livius drusus]

Sweetie, if the participants continue not to avail themselves of the New Thread button, I'd be glad to split off this entire derailment. Just say the word.

[dave_a]

But I will have no part of theocracy, and I will oppose it vehemently.

And I'm supposed to give a shit because........? Or, put less bluntly, what difference would it make what you'd think if this country becomes a Theocracy?

Seebs is telling you that he isn't interested in a human theocracy. He views Jesus differently than you do. Regardless of who is more accurate in their understanding of Jesus, Seebs isn't OK with a militant, you all suck and will burn in hell attitude.



I know that, when I was in China, Christianity was a very underground thing, and that the Chinese shoot people for being dissidents.

Okay, any non-anecdotal evidence?

Umm.. Goliath, here is where you need to read a bit. Asking someone to prove an assertion is OK unless the assertion is so well grounded in historical fact that asking for proof is like asking for proof that 2+2=4. Christians have been persecuted ever since there have been Christians. Christians are not unique in being persecuted, but they most certainly have been persecuted. Communist nations like the former USSR and China are notorious for it. Soviet Union = mandatory atheism.

Dude, I understand your hatred of xianity, but you personalize it too much. Folks like Seebs and Helen are not the enemy. Your treating them as if they are is insulting to them as Christians and to me as an atheist.

[Goliath]

Seebs is telling you that he isn't interested in a human theocracy.

And I'm asking him right back: So fucking what?! Get it?



He views Jesus differently than you do. Regardless of who is more accurate in their understanding of Jesus, Seebs isn't OK with a militant, you all suck and will burn in hell attitude.



Wasn't it Metallica who made a song called...."So fucking what?!" Yep, I think it was them...




Umm.. Goliath, here is where you need to read a bit. Asking someone to prove an assertion is OK unless the assertion is so well grounded in historical fact that asking for proof is like asking for proof that 2+2=4.



Ah, well since the assertion that xians are currently being systematically oppressed in some part of the world is such an obvious assertion, then you shouldn't have any difficulty putting forth some actual evidence, of it, now should you? (and proof? Who the fuck was asking for proof? I wanted evidence. Read, damn it).

Oh, and by the way, I believe it was Russell and Whitehead who formally proved using nothing more than propositional calculus, predicate calculus, and Zermelo-Frankel set theory, that, indeed, 2+2=4 (I think it was in the Principia).





Your treating them as if they are is insulting to them as Christians and to me as an atheist.

In many ways, they are the enemy. Their religion sickens, offends, and disgusts me. But you couldn't be bothered to even consider that, could you?

[viscousmemories]

In many ways, they are the enemy. Their religion sickens, offends, and disgusts me. But you couldn't be bothered to even consider that, could you?
They may be "the enemy" in many ways to you, but I consider seebs, Helen, wildy, and various other Christian members here friends. This is because they are consistently respectful, thoughtful and considerate toward me and toward the other members here. Your frequent verbal assaults on them sicken, offend and disgust me. That they continue to interact with you in spite of your constant abuse says volumes about the quality of their character. In my opinion you have done nothing to earn the kindness they show you.

[dave_a]

Seebs is telling you that he isn't interested in a human theocracy.

And I'm asking him right back: So fucking what?! Get it?



I get that you care nothing for anything other than your own view, yes.

He views Jesus differently than you do. Regardless of who is more accurate in their understanding of Jesus, Seebs isn't OK with a militant, you all suck and will burn in hell attitude.



Wasn't it Metallica who made a song called...."So fucking what?!" Yep, I think it was them...


Again, I get that you care nothing for anything other than your own view.

Umm.. Goliath, here is where you need to read a bit. Asking someone to prove an assertion is OK unless the assertion is so well grounded in historical fact that asking for proof is like asking for proof that 2+2=4.



Ah, well since the assertion that xians are currently being systematically oppressed in some part of the world is such an obvious assertion, then you shouldn't have any difficulty putting forth some actual evidence, of it, now should you? (and proof? Who the fuck was asking for proof? I wanted evidence. Read, damn it).

Like I said, you need to read. It is like proving 2+2=4. If you do not believe that 2+2=4 I really do not care to take the time to explain it to you. I am not interested in proving anything to you. If you choose to remain ignorant of reality it is your choice and I simply don't care.

Oh, and by the way, I believe it was Russell and Whitehead who formally proved using nothing more than propositional calculus, predicate calculus, and Zermelo-Frankel set theory, that, indeed, 2+2=4 (I think it was in the Principia).

Yeah, that is all geek speak to me, and I simply don't care.



Your treating them as if they are is insulting to them as Christians and to me as an atheist.

In many ways, they are the enemy. Their religion sickens, offends, and disgusts me. But you couldn't be bothered to even consider that, could you?

Fuck off asswipe.

"Their religion" isn't a single, specific, set of doctrines. Your inability to make distinctions is your fucking problem, not mine. Deal with it. If you are unwilling to deal with it, why the fuck would you expect me to waste my time dealing with it?

You appear to wish to make improvement in your life and that is great. Start with not being such a sanctimonius asshole, huh?

Meaningful communication generally doesn't occur when folks are busy calling each other assholes.

[Goliath]

I knew it was inevitable... What took you so long?

Your frequent verbal assaults on them sicken, offend and disgust me.

The instant that I give the slightest shit as to what offends and disgusts you, you'll be the first to know.


That they continue to interact with you in spite of your constant abuse says volumes about the quality of their character.

And, of course, the insults and attacks against me are ignored...typical. I would expect no more from you.


In my opinion you have done nothing to earn the kindness they show you.

Again, when your opinion means more to me than a pile of rancid dog shit, I'll let you know.

Edited to say: What a shitty way to ring in 1,000 posts. :deepsigh:

[Goliath]

I get that you care nothing for anything other than your own view, yes.

Nope. Not true.

Again, I get that you care nothing for anything other than your own view.

And again, you're wrong.



Like I said, you need to read. It is like proving 2+2=4.



No, it isn't. Russell and Whitehead proved that 2+2=4, and they're not historians. And again, I said nothing about proof. I wanted evidence.



Fuck off asswipe.



Fuck you, too.



"Their religion" isn't a single, specific, set of doctrines.



Irrelevant.



Your inability to make distinctions is your fucking problem, not mine. Deal with it.



Your inability to realize that distinctions are irrelevant in this discussion is your fucking problem, not mine. Deal with it.



You appear to wish to make improvement in your life and that is great. Start with not being such a sanctimonius asshole, huh?



What difference does it make to you? You've already prettymuch declared yourself to be an enemy. It makes no difference what I say to you.


Meaningful communication generally doesn't occur when folks are busy calling each other assholes.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to believe that you want meaningful communication? Fuck off.

Edited to say: You're almost as much of an assbag as vm. But there's one important difference between you and vm: you aren't an admin, and thusly you can--and will--be put forever on my ignore list.

[dave_a]

Edited to say: You're almost as much of an assbag as vm. But there's one important difference between you and vm: you aren't an admin, and thusly you can--and will--be put forever on my ignore list.

Well then I wish both you and your persecution complex a nice life and a merry christmas. I would wish your ego a merry christmas as well, but I am not sure your inflated self importance makes any room for such things.

Make no mistake, I don't like you, I think you are a stupid prick and your suicide would likely please me at this point. You are too fucking dense to waste anymore time on. I have tried to be nice to you and upon your stupid, egoistic resignation thread I encouraged you to stay on and invited you to join the chat.

I am sorry I did that.

Fuck off and die, you loser. I consider you nothing more than a birth defect your parents should have aborted.

[seebs]

What the FUCK?

Er, uhm. I was actually sort of enjoying the conversation, because Goliath was helping me see some shortcomings in my understanding of one of my own positions.

Where'd all the hostility come from? Chill, dudes.

[seebs]

Seebs is telling you that he isn't interested in a human theocracy.

And I'm asking him right back: So fucking what?! Get it?

So, while I'm a member of at least one group that also contains people who want to see that theocracy, that doesn't mean I'm part of the set of people who want to see such a theocracy happen.

In short... For the purposes of the specific question "should there be a theocracy", I, and most of the other theists I know, are very firmly in the same camp you are.

Wasn't it Metallica who made a song called...."So fucking what?!" Yep, I think it was them...

Hmm. I am afraid my skepticism wins out here; I don't have that song, and I have a pretty solid Metallica collection. I'm afraid I must ask you to cite your sources. :)

Ah, well since the assertion that xians are currently being systematically oppressed in some part of the world is such an obvious assertion, then you shouldn't have any difficulty putting forth some actual evidence, of it, now should you? (and proof? Who the fuck was asking for proof? I wanted evidence. Read, damn it).

Well, I'm not a great researcher, so it's hard for me to give good evidence. Which is a shortcoming, so I'm gonna have to research that before getting back to you on it.

Oh, and by the way, I believe it was Russell and Whitehead who formally proved using nothing more than propositional calculus, predicate calculus, and Zermelo-Frankel set theory, that, indeed, 2+2=4 (I think it was in the Principia).

Yes. But for most purposes, it's enough to have a pair of ones, and another pair of ones, and beat a full house.

In many ways, they are the enemy. Their religion sickens, offends, and disgusts me. But you couldn't be bothered to even consider that, could you?

Some time, when we've got an idle afternoon to kill, I'd like to find out what specifically in my religion is sickening.

So far, my experience has been that mostly people are offended by other branches of Christianity, and that my branch is comparatively inoffensive.

Here we run into an observation I made some time back: If a given branch of Christianity, at any point, puts forth the claim "well, it sounds bad, but you have to recognize that your human moral judgment is totally depraved", there is very little you can do for these people, and you may as well just stop talking to them. The remainder of the belief system will be totally fucked up.

[Adora]

O_O

this is the only way I can find to express my overall reaction to this thread

[Dingfod]

:popcorn:

[viscousmemories]

What the FUCK?

Er, uhm. I was actually sort of enjoying the conversation, because Goliath was helping me see some shortcomings in my understanding of one of my own positions.

Where'd all the hostility come from? Chill, dudes.
Um, seebs... Goliath hijacked this thread by attacking you, and it has been derailed ever since. I'm glad you're enjoying and learning from the discussion, but as for my part the hostility is coming from seeing yet another of many threads here turn into an exploration of Goliath's hatred of Christianity and Christians. I think it is unfair to everyone else here that we can't seem to have a discussion even tangentially related to religion without this happening.

[Goliath]

Um, seebs... Goliath hijacked this thread by attacking you


I vehemently disagree.

but as for my part the hostility is coming from seeing yet another of many threads here turn into an exploration of Goliath's hatred of Christianity and Christians.


Wrong, as usual. I hate xianity. I do not hate xians. How many times do I have to repeat that before it sinks into your thick skull?


we can't seem to have a discussion even tangentially related to religion without this happening.

Your perception on that couldn't be more wrong. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1108)

[wildernesse]

Datonac,

Those are really horrible things to say to Goliath, and I don't think he deserves them.
-------

I went back and re-read the thread, and I seriously don't see Goliath attacking seebs--I think that they're talking past each other a bit (and I don't really know how to solve that, based on the subject), and some jokes are being taken seriously and literally when they shouldn't. There's really no reason that this should have escalated into this, and the reason it did certainly doesn't fall on any one poster's shoulders.

As for this being a discussion about religion (even tangentially--darn not re-reading the exact post when replying) etc. that was derailed by Goliath--I think that that is a really shady description of this thread, since quite a few people couldn't really figure out the point to begin with.

So. Let's all just calm down, maybe make some new threads dealing with particular aspects of this out of control conversation that most interest you, and discuss them. Without wishing harm on anyone and just trying to understand where the other side is coming from. How about it?

[viscousmemories]

As for this being a discussion about religion (even tangentially--darn not re-reading the exact post when replying) etc. that was derailed by Goliath--I think that that is a really shady description of this thread, since quite a few people couldn't really figure out the point to begin with.
I'm sorry wildy, but I think you are wrong. I agree that the topic wasn't very clear from the outset, and that before Goliath posted it wasn't progressing along very productive lines. However, these are Goliath's first two posts to seebs:

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

:eyebrow2: Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

I don't know whether to burst out laughing or let out a sad sigh. Are you actually that out of touch with reality? You people practically run the god damn planet, and by December 31, 2006 you'll more than likely have the US delivered to you--officially and completely--on a Silver Platter in the form of this country officially becoming a Theocracy.

When will it become obvious to you people that too many of you have a persecution complex? Will it end if/when atheists are hauled off to death camps by the thousands until there are none of us left? Or would it take something less drastic?

Sorry to everyone for the derailment, by the way.

I consider suggesting that seebs was putting forth a "laughably ridiculous idea", asking him if he is "that out of touch with reality", his too many of "you people" have a persecution complex comment combined with the ridiculous theocracy and death camps rhetoric to be an attack on Christians and Christianity. I'm very surprised that you and seebs don't agree and pleased that you don't feel like you were attacked.

But I don't appreciate your insinuation that my motive in posting here is "shady". I have made a concerted effort not to interact with Goliath in any way, shape or form for a long time because of his delusions that I am out to get him, I don't think endorsing that paranoid fantasy is going to help anything.

[Goliath]

You know, vm, talking about me as though I'm not here isn't going to help you.

I consider suggesting that seebs was putting forth a "laughably ridiculous idea", asking him if he is "that out of touch with reality", his too many of "you people" have a persecution complex comment combined with the ridiculous theocracy and death camps rhetoric to be an attack on Christians and Christianity.



An attack on xianity? Yes. An attack on xians? No.

You lose. Try again? Y/N


I have made a concerted effort not to interact with Goliath in any way, shape or form


You're either lying, or your efforts have failed miserably.


because of his delusions that I am out to get him, I don't think endorsing that paranoid fantasy is going to help anything.

And with every hateful word you spew forth about me, you show that what you perceive to be my fantasy is absolute reality.

[wildernesse]

I consider suggesting that seebs was putting forth a "laughably ridiculous idea", asking him if he is "that out of touch with reality", his too many of "you people" have a persecution complex comment combined with the ridiculous theocracy and death camps rhetoric to be an attack on Christians and Christianity. I'm very surprised that you and seebs don't agree and pleased that you don't feel like you were attacked.

But I don't appreciate your insinuation that my motive in posting here is "shady". I have made a concerted effort not to interact with Goliath in any way, shape or form for a long time because of his delusions that I am out to get him, I don't think endorsing that paranoid fantasy is going to help anything.

I think Goliath is mistaken about some of the things that he thinks (which I'm sure is mutual), and that he's wrong about certain things he's said on this thread. But there's no point starting or continuing those conversations in this thread. And seriously, being told you hold a laughably ridiculous idea or that you're out of touch with reality pales in comparison to being called mentally ill due to your beliefs or told that you just married your husband because you want to ruin his life. Those, I've taken as attacks. As for the death-camp rhetoric, this is a subject that I think really needs to be hashed out, because there are important points that are completely missing from the present discussion.

I didn't mean to imply that your motives were shady--but that describing this thread as being about religion (even tangentially) is really not an accurate description. Yeah, religion was introduced, but wasn't the point. IMO. Sorry if that got all wrapped up weird.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, I don't know about everybody else, but I'm still bemused with the concept of the U.S. being an official theocracy within two years. That, according to the prophet, means a Constitutional amendment which makes it so....

I don't know about the rest of you, but that is a laughably ridiculous idea that is totally out of touch with reality. Goliath, you may be an excellent mathematician, but your grasp of "realpolitiks" leaves a lot to be desired.

I'd even think that any attempt to institute such might be an excellent idea, because it seems to me that within short order the "Christians" would be arguing over the details of dogma and what should become official and what shouldn't...not to mention those who fall outside the defining parameters. Such an attempt would probably founder quickly on the rocks of dissension. I think that Goliath makes the mistaken assumption that "Christianity" (or xianity) is some kind of monolithic power structure. It's not...

godfry

[Goliath]

That, according to the prophet, means a Constitutional amendment which makes it so....

I'm no prophet. I didn't say that the US would become a Theocracy in two years. That's not what I said. Try again.

Goliath makes the mistaken assumption that "Christianity" (or xianity) is some kind of monolithic power structure.


You're welcome to prove that at your convenience (Hint: I generally know the assumptions that I make, and I have never made such an assumption).

[viscousmemories]

I didn't mean to imply that your motives were shady--but that describing this thread as being about religion (even tangentially) is really not an accurate description. Yeah, religion was introduced, but wasn't the point. IMO. Sorry if that got all wrapped up weird.
Ah, okay thanks for the clarification wildy. I thought Sweetie's point all along was to explore the possibility of more positive avenues of interaction between religious and non-religious people. What do you think the topic was?

[Sweetie]

I guess I'm not really sure how much there is to flesh out, really. Perhaps I'm not really getting the gist of your posts, but what you seem to be arguing for appears self-evident to me.

Oh yes, it's pretty simple. Since I feel comfortable with you to relay my thoughts then I'll clarify. In my opening post I brought up an event in history that was just brought to my mind by having read a thread awhile ago elsewhere and the thought stuck. Now, someone was asking something of a Catholic having to do with Mussolini and the Pope. Keep in mind, whether or not Mussolini did in fact imprison the Pope at all is negligible. I did a quick search and didn't turn up any verification for such a thing, or against such a thing either and didn't look to hard either because it's not important. Now, the Catholic responded that he would have been stupid had he outright killed the Pope. What that is symbolic of in my thought system is an unnecessary act of antagonism which does relate to everything else I brought up.

So, a) in my first post was about an unnecessary act of antagonism that would incite. You don't do that if you don't have to, not if you can get over yourself and have a goal that is higher than the here and now. This relates to having a strategy and intelligence. Also, diplomacy.

I mean, of course if everyone were more diplomatic, empathetic, willing to compromise, intelligent, and strategic it would be easier to reach consensus in politics. Unfortunately as you allude to, there are all kinds of extremists who fail in all those areas and want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Yes, I agree to the latter. There is a few things that there can be no compromising which is why I brought up the concept of having a goal that is higher than the here and now, deciding what is the most important and giving up what is unnecessary, the question, what do you want more and allowing the opponents to feel like they have something which could, in the end, over an extended period of time, actually cause the end results that you want without a large amount of people being incited at the same time, so in that case the idea of people having a tolerance level that can be raised, but that necessarily takes time. The clever mastermind is patient, and knows he could lose all in one slip-up. The problem is of course, that there are so many different groups as an opposition and everybody is fighting for themselves or their own agenda which isn't necessarily the same. I don't necessarily have a solution nor am I really trying to prove anything. Just some thoughts I was thinking.

Keep in mind, I have decided that there will be some antagonism here no matter what, especially with some people. Now, what it did to me before was cause me to just say "whatever", I don't want to deal with all this antagonism if I'm here often so I won't be here. However, I have changed my mind. I'm willing to ignore the antagonism to have conversations with you VM, and people like you. So, I would add that so far I have come to have a high opinion of you, I think we are on the same wavelength in certain respects, especially having to do with the idea of giving everybody a chance, being respectful and so on and so forth. My opinion of you at present would be very hard to change, even if you were speaking against me if you continued on in the same fair way that I have seen you do so far. :v:

[Sweetie]

Adora:

"Better now than never,
better loud than clever,
better just to play the fool,
it's times like this when
you just close your eyes and kiss
'cause everything after this is just
bull-shit and being cruel."

The slate is clean. I remove my notions of you. If you make some attempt to be fair-minded and respectful from this moment forward as I will do so with you,
it's all good.

[viscousmemories]

I don't necessarily have a solution nor am I really trying to prove anything. Just some thoughts I was thinking.
Well in that case I'll just say I agree. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. :)

However, I have changed my mind. I'm willing to ignore the antagonism to have conversations with you VM, and people like you. So, I would add that so far I have come to have a high opinion of you, I think we are on the same wavelength in certain respects, especially having to do with the idea of giving everybody a chance, being respectful and so on and so forth. My opinion of you at present would be very hard to change, even if you were speaking against me if you continued on in the same fair way that I have seen you do so far.
Thanks, Sweetie. I'm flattered. :)

[godfry n. glad]

That, according to the prophet, means a Constitutional amendment which makes it so....

I'm no prophet. I didn't say that the US would become a Theocracy in two years. That's not what I said. Try again.
What you wrote was:

You people practically run the god damn planet, and by December 31, 2006 you'll more than likely have the US delivered to you--officially and completely--on a Silver Platter in the form of this country officially becoming a Theocracy.

"More than likely" and "officially and completely" is preposterous, particularly if a Constitutional amendment is required.

Goliath makes the mistaken assumption that "Christianity" (or xianity) is some kind of monolithic power structure.


You're welcome to prove that at your convenience (Hint: I generally know the assumptions that I make, and I have never made such an assumption).

Goliath... Your entire derail of this thread seems to me to be based upon the assumption that all Christians agree on all points (that Christianity is monolithic)....sufficiently enough to convince two thirds of the state legislatures (that'd be 34 states) to approve bringing a theocracy "officially" into being in the United States within two years. That, in my book, is preposterous. If you think not, then I invite you to show me how the U.S. could become a theocracy within two years... Such a claim is preposterous.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

I don't necessarily have a solution nor am I really trying to prove anything. Just some thoughts I was thinking.
Well in that case I'll just say I agree. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. :)

vm... Do you have evidence of this?

And, of course, the next question is, "Why do we want to catch flies?"

And lastly, if you do want to catch flies, I'd say that feces would be your best bet...or tainted meat.

Do you really want to go there? :P

godfry

[viscousmemories]

vm... Do you have evidence of this?
Dammit, I knew I'd get called to the mat on this one. No, I admit my only evidence in support of this is hearsay. :(

And, of course, the next question is, "Why do we want to catch flies?"
Oh well that's easy: Free food!

And lastly, if you do want to catch flies, I'd say that feces would be your best bet...or tainted meat.
Ah, but see neither are viscous enough to hold the fly. ;)

Do you really want to go there? :P
Should we move this discussion to "Sexuality"? :D