Since this isn't about whether or not the state should endorse any particular religion (and never has been), but, in truth, it's about whether the state should ACKNOWLEDGE the right of the prople to do as they see fit, I suggest a new prayer for the secularists and liberals...
Our Government,
Which art in Washington,
Inculpable be Thy actions.
Thy empire come.
Thy will be done,
Around the globe
As it is in the US.
Give us this day
Our daily bread,
Free retirement, healthcare,
Environmental protection,
Transportation, education,
Protectionist tariffs,
Security, regulation,
Fiat currency, and anything else
the majority of registered voters wants.
And go more into debt,
As we become more debtors.
And lead us into blind obedience,
As we give up our freedom.
For Thine is the Empire,
and our incomes and the military,
and police powers, and the glory,
forever.
Or until the loose fiscal policy, borrowing money,
and creating the fiat currency necessary to,
sustain the socialistic paternal State combines
with the insurmountable cost of defense against
the global unrest caused by poor foreign policy
and brings the whole Ponzi scheme crashing to its knees.
But should the diversity be regulated by government? With the thought police presence on the rise, there seems to be some hypersensitivity about "hate" toward other religions, while there is open season on Christian emblems.
The flying imams seem to be pushing for the right to fine airlines that protect their passengers from Muslims acting outrageously. It looks to me like a push for special rights for diversity religions or races or nationalities, which means lesser rights for the 80% or so majority Christian people.
I sure haven't seen indications that Christians want to put others in camps for not believing ... isn't that more what sharia law is about ... imposing extra burdens on non-muslims? And that is something being aggresively sought even in Western nations.
I was using my imagination, guys--what if! Sheesh.
Minority religions do look to the government. Separation of church and state is a precious ideal.
Things look a little different if you are, say, a pagan army widow who wants a pentacle on her husband's grave. Or if you are a Jew looking at the city park Nativity scene, or if you are anyone not Christian looking at the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn...
Having read some about the Christian dominionist movement--yeah, those people are scary.Unless you are on their approved list.
I presume by dominionists you mean those who subscribe to dominion theology, the idea that the church will grow & flourish to the point of establishing the kingdom of God on earth.
It's a stupid and dangerous theology, but can you show me a movement of dominionists ready to take up arms, do suicide bombings, terrorist acts or other acts of violent rebellion/overthrow? Doubtless there are a handful of Koresh-like kooks that fit that profile but can you honestly think they pose a credible threat?
Some things are not meant to go together — like the combination floor wax and dessert topping hawked in a mock advertisement on an early Saturday Night Live episode. Or this: religion and video-game carnage.
This latter combination of dubious merit is now available at stores ($59.99 for a collector's version that includes a Bible) under the name Left Behind: Eternal Forces.
The faith-based video game, based on the popular Left Behind series of apocalyptic novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, takes place in post-Rapture New York City. The good guys are known as the Tribulation Force, the bad guys as the Global Community Peacekeepers. In single-person playing, the object is to save as many of the remaining souls as possible — by converting them and killing those who get in the way. (cont.)
DALLAS, Texas (Reuters) -- A Christian video game has become the latest battleground in America's "culture" wars, with its maker claiming it promotes prayer while critics charge it carries a message of violent religious intolerance.
"Left Behind: Eternal Forces," is a teen-rated PC strategy game based on the wildly popular "Left Behind" Christian book series created by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
The game is set in New York City after millions of Christians have been transported to heaven.
Players are charged with recruiting, and converting, an army that will engage in physical and spiritual warfare with the antichrist and his evil followers.
(snip)
The critics describe it as "a violent video game in which born-again Christians aim to convert or kill those who don't adhere to their extreme ideology."(cont.)
Hysterical? I don't think so.
Google "video game"+Christian and look for news on that search.
When I start seeing the killings I'll believe it. It's incredibly dumb stuff, like a Kinkade "painting" gone horribly wrong, but it poses no threat. The real threat of violence comes from radical Islam. Now that is what I call a credible threat.
Well, I'm confused by your last post, rhino. I haven't seen the US Government pushing any religious diversity agenda, in fact just the opposite. I still have to place my hand on a Bible, and swear to God if I testify in a courtroom. My money still states I trust in God. To pledge allegience to this country that I am proud to be a citizen of, I must state that it is under God. That doesn't leave much room for people who worship a Goddess, or the atheist, or the many other Americans who do not worship God.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-- From the treaty of Tripoli, signed unanimously by the U.S. congress and president John Adams.
However, there's no neat and clear answer. To some founding fathers, the U.S. should have had a state religion and force everyone to adhere to it. There were religious nuts back then just as there are now. However, others were merely deists and a few were possibly even atheists (I suggest reading Ben Franklin's anti-Christianity rants, for example.)
The bottom line is that the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution isn't all that clear, but the way I see it, it prohibits the church being involved with the government and the reverse.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The only way I've seen people try to weasel out of that is by saying that states have the rights to establish churches, or misinterpret the view to be one that the Constitution should prevent religious people from participating in the government. Neither of those are true. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a small minority Christian sect that stated:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
We can argue all day long about what the founders of this country meant in the Constitution, but if we read more of their writing, it's pretty clear that after the AoC, they realized establishing a theocracy was a bad idea.
What is unfortunate though, is that it seems a vocal minority of people want to establish a theocracy here. A book came out called America, Return to God that is a pretty good example of a Dominionist point of view. A documentary came out recently about a training camp for kids where they learned to be "soldiers" for Jesus called Jesus Camp You may be familiar with one of the founders of the Dominionist dogma, D. James Kennedy, creator of the Coral Ridge Ministries started a lot of it.
We can sit around trash talking about Muslim countries all day, but the reality is that the Moors maintained civilization while our ancestors (I'm assuming most of the people here are white, since we are ex-TWI) slogged through the dark ages. Things appear to have changed for the most part and we are the advanced ones while their nations have regressed culturally. However, nothing is set in stone, and the U.S. could easily fall into something lesser than we are today if these nuts are allowed to take over our nation and remake it in their image. It's true that we currently don't have religious terrorists on par with the middle east. The reason is that Christianity is well-accepted and Christians have a privileged place in our society. If Christians truly were oppressed in this country, some would become terrorists rather quickly.
Of course, all the anger against "diversity" is just a whine by a privileged member of the majority who are unhappy to see their advantage shrinking and the playing field being leveled. I'm not talking about the more extreme measures such as racial quotas for college. I can see problems with that as well. However I do see the value in not forcing students to pray in school, and the value in respecting people of other religions, races, or ideas. When I was in TWI, I learned to hate the Jews like everyone else. Since leaving TWI I learned that the Holocaust did indeed happen and on an incredible scale, that Jewish people really are from the middle east, and that Jews can be pretty nice people. In fact, a Jewish friend helped me put up blinds in my house this weekend, my wife and I went out to eat with a Chinese couple. Diversity has made our lives better, not worse. The only people who diversity has a negative effect on are those who are afraid to face the world as it really is.
I'll probably go back to lurker mode now, but here's my two cents.
I guess swearing on the Bible is a nod to Christianity ... but it is really just symbolic of the seriousness of telling the truth. After a bunch of Muslims destroyed the world trade center, Christians were chastised by the government, and given special instructions to not retaliate against all Muslims. (that is sorta revising the story, but you can maybe see what I mean) Now CAIR is incessantly demanding special rights for Muslims, though maybe not getting them. I guess I don't have a great example ... it just seems there is a tendancy to give in to the diverse minority over the homebread Christian ...
In fact, a Jewish friend helped me put up blinds in my house this weekend, my wife and I went out to eat with a Chinese couple. Diversity has made our lives better, not worse. The only people who diversity has a negative effect on are those who are afraid to face the world as it really is.
Well, diversity means, life is good, we need to diversify with some "life is bad" people.
So I am afraid to face the world as it really is because I don't think "minorities" should have points added to their SAT scores so they can get into college instead of a better qualified white guy? But it is great that you know some Chinese folks and have a Jewish friend ... I guess that changes everything .... :blink:
I know Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, atheists, ugly people etc ... I also know short people, fat people and stupid people ... I've dated black women and hispanic and Belgian women ... so does my diversity thinking trump your lame diversity thinking? I bet you aren't near so diverse as you think. Good grief. Some of my best friends are stupid people, but if I am having heart surgery done on me, I don't want the surgeon to have been chosen because he was diverse, give me the smartest guy thank you very much ...
Then you defend the Muslim problems based on the Moors, and you say Christians today are the problem because somewhere there are kids that went to some camp and were taught to be soldiers for Jesus. Are you blind to the Muslims kids that not only took a military like class, but have actually gone out and blown themselves up? Is a little bit of Moor history more relevant than that? Holy Moly!
I didn't trash-talk Muslim countries (but I will if'n you want me to). I simply pointed out that radical Islam is where the real danger lies, simply based on 1, what they've promised, and keep promising to do and 2, based on what they've already done to demonstrate they mean what they say.
I tend to think that it's more than a possibility that "we" (meaning America) will find ourselves in the position of the socio-economic backwater currently occupied by Muslim countries. I don't think they'll ascend to take our place, though. The Chinese are more likely to do that. Though I'm sure they'd oppress/supress the Christian church here to some extent, it'd be nothing compared to Shariah law.
Coral Ridge & D. James Kennedy a danger to society? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
It's pretty clear that your problem is not related to diversity or anything of the like, but rather that you didn't really read my post. In fact, you mentioned the SATs, which are to get into college. I said:
I'm not talking about the more extreme measures such as racial quotas for college. I can see problems with that as well.
My idea of diversity is not giving unfair advantages, but rather helping those who are unfairly disadvantaged, and to help people interact with those who are different than they are, with the goal that all people can see that we are all human beings and in the same boat.
Additionally, nowhere in my post do I defend Muslims, and in fact say:
We can sit around trash talking about Muslim countries all day, but the reality is that the Moors maintained civilization while our ancestors (I'm assuming most of the people here are white, since we are ex-TWI) slogged through the dark ages. Things appear to have changed for the most part and we are the advanced ones while their nations have regressed culturally. However, nothing is set in stone, and the U.S. could easily fall into something lesser than we are today if these nuts are allowed to take over our nation and remake it in their image. It's true that we currently don't have religious terrorists on par with the middle east.
If it wasn't clear, I was saying that the middle eastern countries have religious terrorists and we don't (although I think we're on the verge of it), and that we are more civilized while they regressed from the past. The point in bringing up the Moors is to show that Muslims don't have to be savages like al Qaeda, nor are all Christians as enlightened as many American Christians have been throughout our nation's history. History and culture are fluid.
I didn't trash-talk Muslim countries (but I will if'n you want me to). I simply pointed out that radical Islam is where the real danger lies, simply based on 1, what they've promised, and keep promising to do and 2, based on what they've already done to demonstrate they mean what they say.
I tend to think that it's more than a possibility that "we" (meaning America) will find ourselves in the position of the socio-economic backwater currently occupied by Muslim countries. I don't think they'll ascend to take our place, though. The Chinese are more likely to do that. Though I'm sure they'd oppress/supress the Christian church here to some extent, it'd be nothing compared to Shariah law.
Coral Ridge & D. James Kennedy a danger to society? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I actually agree with most of what you have said. There's no question that the Chinese are going to become the dominant world superpower, probably within our lifetimes. The E.U. is more financially stable than we are, but if our economy crashes the E.U. will go along with us, plus they have some major problems of their own. However, I doubt that the Chinese would oppress Christians too much if they were in charge of us (which I doubt would happen because that would result in war.) The Chinese style is more to set up a censored version that makes the state look good.
I also didn't mean to insinuate that the muslims will ascend to take our place, there's no way that would happen. Once the oil is gone or too expensive to gather they'll be no better off than most of Africa.
Also, Coral Ridge themselves are not so much the danger, but they started the Dominionist movement, and lots of younger groups are taking from that and going further. Kennedy started the whole "take over the U.S. government for Christianity" movement, and others are putting the military conflict spin on it. It's going to backfire.
When I start seeing the killings I'll believe it. It's incredibly dumb stuff, like a Kinkade "painting" gone horribly wrong, but it poses no threat. The real threat of violence comes from radical Islam. Now that is what I call a credible threat.
And THAT (your comment, quoted above) is what I call DENIAL.
First you accuse one person of making it up. Then, when presented with tangible evidence that "Christians" when given "what they are asking for" (not all of them, but get honest Evan, Christians, especially fundamentalists -- are SHEEP -- they'll do what their pastor suggests they do) will be violent... you rationalize it away.
Fundamentalist Christianity will be NO less dangerous, if given too much of a place in society, as radical Islam.
Surely you see it already -- by "virtue" of the radical attacks on abortion providers? Unless you block it out of your awareness because it will cause psychological pain.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (engineer) to figure out the sociological implications of such a scenario. But it DOES take someone willing to face potential anxiety producing truth.
However, there's no neat and clear answer. To some founding fathers, the U.S. should have had a state religion and force everyone to adhere to it. There were religious nuts back then just as there are now. However, others were merely deists and a few were possibly even atheists (I suggest reading Ben Franklin's anti-Christianity rants, for example.)
And don't forget Thomas Paine. Without his writings, we might never have had an American Revolution.
His Common Sense lit the fuse, as it were... put another way, though there was plenty of grumbling about the tyranny of King George, the Colonies did not galvanize to undertake the founding of this new nation until Paine lit a fire under their collective a$$es.
AND, Paine was persecuted by Christian churches of all flavors after his essay The Age of Reason was published. This pamphlet essentially wiped out the hold churches and preachers had on the masses by way of superstition. Look it up. Google "Thomas Paine." The enmity toward him was so deep and long lasting that one time I mentioned something about the guy that said "Give me liberty, or give me death" -- Patrick Henry, in front of Wierwille. I had no idea who Paine was at that time. But Wierwille practically had a cow, doing a double take and asking me again who I had mentioned. It took me more than 20 years to realize he was thinking of Paine... Paine was considered a heretic of the highest order for that particular essay.... http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...ason/intro.html
Rocky, I do deny that the radical extremes of Christian dominionists, end-timers, rascist groups, self-styled militias and the like pose a significant threat. P-Mosh is correct in his assessment that it will (and for the most-part already has) seriously backfire.
I can't see any comparison between an ideologically diverse smattering of misfit nutcases, some of whom have gone criminal and an ideologically monolithic Muslim extremist movement that has huge numbers, well-financed and is sheltered/nutured by a number of nations.
No comparison.
My assessment, and it's only an opinion, is that we're moving the other direction...more towards Europe's model. It's been our long-term trend. Our Christian heritage (our topic) will likely, over the long run, become a footnote of history.
Please tell us how is it that you feel you are called on to subsidize diversity?
My main reason for bringing it up was the Supreme Court ruling (as I recall) that quotas were wrong, but colleges were required to promote diversity, or some such. So what does that mean? If there is 80% white christian population, colleges have to diversify away from that apparently.
I did miss P-Mosh's comment about college, but the issue seems to extend to selective enforcement of "hate speech" as well. White guys need to be very sensitive, but others can call Christian whitey anything they want. Of course that is just the impression I get. I don't think the required diversity decision is only pertinent to college.
P-Mosh, it does seem you defend Muslims by pointing to the Moors, while taking christians to task for some group somewhere that you think might one day become militant. The dark ages were a long time ago and not really too relevant. It seems you are whistling past the graveyard. The Muslim problem is at hand. They have a few decades before the oil runs out and the bad factions seem to be growing.
But there is also the question of the huge influx from Mexico, and the calls for another blanket amnesty. I'm not sure if they are Christian, maybe it is more a question of whether they are raised with the "apple pie all American beliefs" that I'd like to think most Americans have.
I'd say "my problem" is with required diversity. I lived as a minority in New Orleans for a 15 years and was engulfed in diversity. I didn't mind it at all except for the crime.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
6
12
Popular Days
Dec 18
27
Dec 17
24
Dec 19
15
Dec 21
2
Top Posters In This Topic
TheEvan 9 posts
Rocky 12 posts
GarthP2000 6 posts
rhino 12 posts
Popular Days
Dec 18 2006
27 posts
Dec 17 2006
24 posts
Dec 19 2006
15 posts
Dec 21 2006
2 posts
Posted Images
markomalley
I suppose a theocracy under the Christian left would be ok, though...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Since this isn't about whether or not the state should endorse any particular religion (and never has been), but, in truth, it's about whether the state should ACKNOWLEDGE the right of the prople to do as they see fit, I suggest a new prayer for the secularists and liberals...
Our Government,
Which art in Washington,
Inculpable be Thy actions.
Thy empire come.
Thy will be done,
Around the globe
As it is in the US.
Give us this day
Our daily bread,
Free retirement, healthcare,
Environmental protection,
Transportation, education,
Protectionist tariffs,
Security, regulation,
Fiat currency, and anything else
the majority of registered voters wants.
And go more into debt,
As we become more debtors.
And lead us into blind obedience,
As we give up our freedom.
For Thine is the Empire,
and our incomes and the military,
and police powers, and the glory,
forever.
Or until the loose fiscal policy, borrowing money,
and creating the fiat currency necessary to,
sustain the socialistic paternal State combines
with the insurmountable cost of defense against
the global unrest caused by poor foreign policy
and brings the whole Ponzi scheme crashing to its knees.
Amen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The flying imams seem to be pushing for the right to fine airlines that protect their passengers from Muslims acting outrageously. It looks to me like a push for special rights for diversity religions or races or nationalities, which means lesser rights for the 80% or so majority Christian people.
I sure haven't seen indications that Christians want to put others in camps for not believing ... isn't that more what sharia law is about ... imposing extra burdens on non-muslims? And that is something being aggresively sought even in Western nations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I was using my imagination, guys--what if! Sheesh.
Minority religions do look to the government. Separation of church and state is a precious ideal.
Things look a little different if you are, say, a pagan army widow who wants a pentacle on her husband's grave. Or if you are a Jew looking at the city park Nativity scene, or if you are anyone not Christian looking at the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn...
Having read some about the Christian dominionist movement--yeah, those people are scary.Unless you are on their approved list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Then again Bramble, your probably making the part of the Christian Dominionist part up too now, aren't you?
Strange Mark, since I never heard anything about any theocracy from the Christian Left. Perhaps you could fill us in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I presume by dominionists you mean those who subscribe to dominion theology, the idea that the church will grow & flourish to the point of establishing the kingdom of God on earth.
It's a stupid and dangerous theology, but can you show me a movement of dominionists ready to take up arms, do suicide bombings, terrorist acts or other acts of violent rebellion/overthrow? Doubtless there are a handful of Koresh-like kooks that fit that profile but can you honestly think they pose a credible threat?
I can't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
From way back in the first post:
Maybe more and more people are putting their nativity scenes out in late September, early October...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm pretty sure you meant that either tongue-in-cheek or as sarcasm, but it's still a most insane idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Does he now? Making that part up? I DOUBT IT!
You haven't seen this item (a USA TODAY editorial on something being marketed that sounds eerily like just such a scenario as Bramble imagined) yet?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/post_39.html
AND This news report on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/12/...ntorversy.reut/
Hysterical? I don't think so.
Google "video game"+Christian and look for news on that search.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
When I start seeing the killings I'll believe it. It's incredibly dumb stuff, like a Kinkade "painting" gone horribly wrong, but it poses no threat. The real threat of violence comes from radical Islam. Now that is what I call a credible threat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Well, I'm confused by your last post, rhino. I haven't seen the US Government pushing any religious diversity agenda, in fact just the opposite. I still have to place my hand on a Bible, and swear to God if I testify in a courtroom. My money still states I trust in God. To pledge allegience to this country that I am proud to be a citizen of, I must state that it is under God. That doesn't leave much room for people who worship a Goddess, or the atheist, or the many other Americans who do not worship God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
-- From the treaty of Tripoli, signed unanimously by the U.S. congress and president John Adams.
However, there's no neat and clear answer. To some founding fathers, the U.S. should have had a state religion and force everyone to adhere to it. There were religious nuts back then just as there are now. However, others were merely deists and a few were possibly even atheists (I suggest reading Ben Franklin's anti-Christianity rants, for example.)
The bottom line is that the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution isn't all that clear, but the way I see it, it prohibits the church being involved with the government and the reverse.
The only way I've seen people try to weasel out of that is by saying that states have the rights to establish churches, or misinterpret the view to be one that the Constitution should prevent religious people from participating in the government. Neither of those are true. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a small minority Christian sect that stated:
We can argue all day long about what the founders of this country meant in the Constitution, but if we read more of their writing, it's pretty clear that after the AoC, they realized establishing a theocracy was a bad idea.
What is unfortunate though, is that it seems a vocal minority of people want to establish a theocracy here. A book came out called America, Return to God that is a pretty good example of a Dominionist point of view. A documentary came out recently about a training camp for kids where they learned to be "soldiers" for Jesus called Jesus Camp You may be familiar with one of the founders of the Dominionist dogma, D. James Kennedy, creator of the Coral Ridge Ministries started a lot of it.
We can sit around trash talking about Muslim countries all day, but the reality is that the Moors maintained civilization while our ancestors (I'm assuming most of the people here are white, since we are ex-TWI) slogged through the dark ages. Things appear to have changed for the most part and we are the advanced ones while their nations have regressed culturally. However, nothing is set in stone, and the U.S. could easily fall into something lesser than we are today if these nuts are allowed to take over our nation and remake it in their image. It's true that we currently don't have religious terrorists on par with the middle east. The reason is that Christianity is well-accepted and Christians have a privileged place in our society. If Christians truly were oppressed in this country, some would become terrorists rather quickly.
Of course, all the anger against "diversity" is just a whine by a privileged member of the majority who are unhappy to see their advantage shrinking and the playing field being leveled. I'm not talking about the more extreme measures such as racial quotas for college. I can see problems with that as well. However I do see the value in not forcing students to pray in school, and the value in respecting people of other religions, races, or ideas. When I was in TWI, I learned to hate the Jews like everyone else. Since leaving TWI I learned that the Holocaust did indeed happen and on an incredible scale, that Jewish people really are from the middle east, and that Jews can be pretty nice people. In fact, a Jewish friend helped me put up blinds in my house this weekend, my wife and I went out to eat with a Chinese couple. Diversity has made our lives better, not worse. The only people who diversity has a negative effect on are those who are afraid to face the world as it really is.
I'll probably go back to lurker mode now, but here's my two cents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I guess swearing on the Bible is a nod to Christianity ... but it is really just symbolic of the seriousness of telling the truth. After a bunch of Muslims destroyed the world trade center, Christians were chastised by the government, and given special instructions to not retaliate against all Muslims. (that is sorta revising the story, but you can maybe see what I mean) Now CAIR is incessantly demanding special rights for Muslims, though maybe not getting them. I guess I don't have a great example ... it just seems there is a tendancy to give in to the diverse minority over the homebread Christian ...
I'll have to get back to you ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
So I am afraid to face the world as it really is because I don't think "minorities" should have points added to their SAT scores so they can get into college instead of a better qualified white guy? But it is great that you know some Chinese folks and have a Jewish friend ... I guess that changes everything .... :blink:
I know Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, atheists, ugly people etc ... I also know short people, fat people and stupid people ... I've dated black women and hispanic and Belgian women ... so does my diversity thinking trump your lame diversity thinking? I bet you aren't near so diverse as you think. Good grief. Some of my best friends are stupid people, but if I am having heart surgery done on me, I don't want the surgeon to have been chosen because he was diverse, give me the smartest guy thank you very much ...
Then you defend the Muslim problems based on the Moors, and you say Christians today are the problem because somewhere there are kids that went to some camp and were taught to be soldiers for Jesus. Are you blind to the Muslims kids that not only took a military like class, but have actually gone out and blown themselves up? Is a little bit of Moor history more relevant than that? Holy Moly!
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Getting a tad frustrated there, Bill?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I didn't trash-talk Muslim countries (but I will if'n you want me to). I simply pointed out that radical Islam is where the real danger lies, simply based on 1, what they've promised, and keep promising to do and 2, based on what they've already done to demonstrate they mean what they say.
I tend to think that it's more than a possibility that "we" (meaning America) will find ourselves in the position of the socio-economic backwater currently occupied by Muslim countries. I don't think they'll ascend to take our place, though. The Chinese are more likely to do that. Though I'm sure they'd oppress/supress the Christian church here to some extent, it'd be nothing compared to Shariah law.
Coral Ridge & D. James Kennedy a danger to society? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Rhino,
Please tell us how is it that you feel you are called on to subsidize diversity?
RJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
rhino,
It's pretty clear that your problem is not related to diversity or anything of the like, but rather that you didn't really read my post. In fact, you mentioned the SATs, which are to get into college. I said:
My idea of diversity is not giving unfair advantages, but rather helping those who are unfairly disadvantaged, and to help people interact with those who are different than they are, with the goal that all people can see that we are all human beings and in the same boat.Additionally, nowhere in my post do I defend Muslims, and in fact say:
If it wasn't clear, I was saying that the middle eastern countries have religious terrorists and we don't (although I think we're on the verge of it), and that we are more civilized while they regressed from the past. The point in bringing up the Moors is to show that Muslims don't have to be savages like al Qaeda, nor are all Christians as enlightened as many American Christians have been throughout our nation's history. History and culture are fluid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I actually agree with most of what you have said. There's no question that the Chinese are going to become the dominant world superpower, probably within our lifetimes. The E.U. is more financially stable than we are, but if our economy crashes the E.U. will go along with us, plus they have some major problems of their own. However, I doubt that the Chinese would oppress Christians too much if they were in charge of us (which I doubt would happen because that would result in war.) The Chinese style is more to set up a censored version that makes the state look good.
I also didn't mean to insinuate that the muslims will ascend to take our place, there's no way that would happen. Once the oil is gone or too expensive to gather they'll be no better off than most of Africa.
Also, Coral Ridge themselves are not so much the danger, but they started the Dominionist movement, and lots of younger groups are taking from that and going further. Kennedy started the whole "take over the U.S. government for Christianity" movement, and others are putting the military conflict spin on it. It's going to backfire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And THAT (your comment, quoted above) is what I call DENIAL.
First you accuse one person of making it up. Then, when presented with tangible evidence that "Christians" when given "what they are asking for" (not all of them, but get honest Evan, Christians, especially fundamentalists -- are SHEEP -- they'll do what their pastor suggests they do) will be violent... you rationalize it away.
Fundamentalist Christianity will be NO less dangerous, if given too much of a place in society, as radical Islam.
Surely you see it already -- by "virtue" of the radical attacks on abortion providers? Unless you block it out of your awareness because it will cause psychological pain.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (engineer) to figure out the sociological implications of such a scenario. But it DOES take someone willing to face potential anxiety producing truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And don't forget Thomas Paine. Without his writings, we might never have had an American Revolution.
His Common Sense lit the fuse, as it were... put another way, though there was plenty of grumbling about the tyranny of King George, the Colonies did not galvanize to undertake the founding of this new nation until Paine lit a fire under their collective a$$es.
AND, Paine was persecuted by Christian churches of all flavors after his essay The Age of Reason was published. This pamphlet essentially wiped out the hold churches and preachers had on the masses by way of superstition. Look it up. Google "Thomas Paine." The enmity toward him was so deep and long lasting that one time I mentioned something about the guy that said "Give me liberty, or give me death" -- Patrick Henry, in front of Wierwille. I had no idea who Paine was at that time. But Wierwille practically had a cow, doing a double take and asking me again who I had mentioned. It took me more than 20 years to realize he was thinking of Paine... Paine was considered a heretic of the highest order for that particular essay.... http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...ason/intro.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me. I believe the correct expression is "Holy CRAP!" (in remembrance of the late Peter Boyle, aka Frank Barone).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Rocky, I do deny that the radical extremes of Christian dominionists, end-timers, rascist groups, self-styled militias and the like pose a significant threat. P-Mosh is correct in his assessment that it will (and for the most-part already has) seriously backfire.
I can't see any comparison between an ideologically diverse smattering of misfit nutcases, some of whom have gone criminal and an ideologically monolithic Muslim extremist movement that has huge numbers, well-financed and is sheltered/nutured by a number of nations.
No comparison.
My assessment, and it's only an opinion, is that we're moving the other direction...more towards Europe's model. It's been our long-term trend. Our Christian heritage (our topic) will likely, over the long run, become a footnote of history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I did miss P-Mosh's comment about college, but the issue seems to extend to selective enforcement of "hate speech" as well. White guys need to be very sensitive, but others can call Christian whitey anything they want. Of course that is just the impression I get. I don't think the required diversity decision is only pertinent to college.
P-Mosh, it does seem you defend Muslims by pointing to the Moors, while taking christians to task for some group somewhere that you think might one day become militant. The dark ages were a long time ago and not really too relevant. It seems you are whistling past the graveyard. The Muslim problem is at hand. They have a few decades before the oil runs out and the bad factions seem to be growing.
But there is also the question of the huge influx from Mexico, and the calls for another blanket amnesty. I'm not sure if they are Christian, maybe it is more a question of whether they are raised with the "apple pie all American beliefs" that I'd like to think most Americans have.
I'd say "my problem" is with required diversity. I lived as a minority in New Orleans for a 15 years and was engulfed in diversity. I didn't mind it at all except for the crime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.