• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this allowed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dav said:
Race and politics are also linked, as the 96% of blacks who voted for Obama might tell you.

Does that justify racism?
Click to expand...

Does that mean that the swastika imposed over the Obama symbol is racist hate speech? Do you want to go there? If so, I'm game.

That would at least be consistent. ;)
 
Dav said:
My dad is an atheist who is against gay marriage. And there are Christians who are against gay marriage. If gay marriage were solely a religious issue, this would not be the case.

Atheists don't have families?
Then who are my parents?

Well, he certainly won a large percentage of the vote last election.... :roll:

Atheists don't have morals? And here they've been trying to convince me that you don't need religion to have morals....

Well, she certainly won a large percentage of the vote last election.... :roll:

Ann Coulter does not speak for all Christians.
Click to expand...

Worst response ever. Do you even know who Focus on the Family are? Or the Moral Majority?

:doh
 
This was posted in the middle east forum recently detailing the rule to a greater degree (at least used towards Islam, anyway.)


quote
• Does the message cast an entire group of people in a negative light without any reasonable attempt to distinguish between individuals responsible for criticism and individuals who are not e.g., treating all persons as a group responsible for terrorism when, in fact, not every person from a group is responsible.

• Members making sweeping claims with respect to groups of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability will have the burden of providing specific, concrete, reliable, and objective substantiating evidence to avoid infractions for such claims. Unsupported claims that are viewed as derogatory or worse will be infracted.

Whether such messages are infracted as offensive/disrespectful messages or Rule 18 violations will depend on the gravity of the violation and/or whether a member has repeatedly engaged in such conduct in spite of past infractions for such conduct.
end quote

Since this rule seems designed with Islam in mind, and indeed, one outspoken critic of such was banned recently, it strikes me as patently unfair were it would not be applied to Christians or Jewish people.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Does that mean that the swastika imposed over the Obama symbol is racist hate speech? Do you want to go there? If so, I'm game.

That would at least be consistent. ;)
Click to expand...

No, because that would be political.

Christianity is not a political movement, as has been pointed out in several posts, many of which you have ignored, and as anyone who is not eligible to enter a mental asylum could tell you.
 
Dav said:
Christianity is not a political movement, as has been pointed out in several posts, many of which you have ignored, and as anyone who is not eligible to enter a mental asylum could tell you.
Click to expand...

I've given you numerous examples of how Christianity is indeed political...the moral majority, the religious right's socially conservative political agenda, the fact that political candidates have a religious litmus test in this country. You've provided your opinion.

Fail.
 
Captain America said:
I did a little checking. I came up with some more avatars here designed to flame and invoke hatred amongst our community. But so what? I think it adds spice to the cake.

Enjoy!!

8439.gif
Click to expand...


Osama bin Laden, the individual + Obama, the individula =/= swastika + Christians

4309.gif
Click to expand...

Obama, the politician + Karl Marx, the economist =/= swastika +Christians

7848.gif
Click to expand...

That was done specifically to be inflammatory. You can see the meltdown that led to it right here in this thread.

1452.gif
Click to expand...

Hitler =/= Swastika + Christians

3850.gif
Click to expand...

Snapshot of Nazi punks =/= Meshing a symbol sacred to people on this board with the most demonizing symbol of the past 100 years.

None of that was even comparable.

There's more. But you get my point.

Some of these avatars will definitely inflame certain people here. They don't bother me at all. Where do we draw the line? Who are we allowed to inflame and who is exempt?
Click to expand...

I think when the attempt is to blatantly demonize a whole group of people by painting them with a broad, insulting brush...it's pretty safe to say that's inflammatory and a hindrance to civil discourse.
 
jallman said:
That was done specifically to be inflammatory. You can see the meltdown that led to it right here in this thread.
Click to expand...

I love that graphic. It was inflammatory because we know there is a strong element of truth to it.

Didn't Bush attempt to link his rule with the will of God? I'm pretty sure he did.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Worst response ever. Do you even know who Focus on the Family are? Or the Moral Majority?

:doh
Click to expand...

Yes, they were political groups who did not represent the majority of Christians in America. The fact that their political views were largely derived from their religion doesn't mean crap.

Tell me, when you look at toothpicvic's sig, would you- or rather, would a non-delusional person- immediately think, "oh yes, that must be a criticism of the "moral majority"!"

The cross is associated with Christianity, not any particular Christian political groups.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I love that graphic. It was inflammatory because we know there is a strong element of truth to it.

Didn't Bush attempt to link his rule with the will of God? I'm pretty sure he did.
Click to expand...

Every leader does that. It wasn't something unique to Bush.
 
Dav said:
Yes, they were political groups who did not represent the majority of Christians in America.
Click to expand...

The majority of Christians in America are evangelicals.
Evangelicals are the ones leading the politicization of religion.
Thus, it does in fact represent the CURRENT majority of Christians in America.

Sorry. Logic always wins.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Clearly, it's racial. After all, 97% of black people voted for Obama. Thus, you're implying that they are Nazis.
Click to expand...

No, that's the kind of backwards logic you are trying to use by saying that a picture attacking Christianity is actually just attacking political Christian movements.
 
Dav said:
No, that's the kind of backwards logic you are trying to use by saying that a picture attacking Christianity is actually just attacking political Christian movements.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to show you how ludicrous your position is, logically speaking. See? I told you it was ridiculous on page 3.
 
jallman said:
Every leader does that. It wasn't something unique to Bush.
Click to expand...

And in this country, because we're a Christian theocracy, they link themselves to Baby Jesus. Haven't you read the countless "America is a Christian Nation" threads?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
But they are a religious + political group.
Click to expand...

That, sir, they are. No doubt about it. Politics is preached from just about every pulpit I have sat in front of.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Praize Jeeeeezus...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
And in this country, because we're a Christian theocracy, they link themselves to Baby Jesus. Haven't you read the countless "America is a Christian Nation" threads?
Click to expand...

We are not a Christian theocracy. But it is foolish for a leader not to give a nod of assent to the single largest voting demographic in the country.

And that still has nothing to do with a discussion about how we interact with one another confined within this message board.
 
Captain America said:
That, sir, they are. No doubt about it. Politics is preached from just about every pulpit I have sat in front of.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Praize Jeeeeezus...
Click to expand...

A guy at one of my former churches told me that if I voted Democrat, i didn't love Jesus. Heh.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I've given you numerous examples of how Christianity is indeed political...the moral majority, the religious right's socially conservative political agenda, the fact that political candidates have a religious litmus test in this country. You've provided your opinion.

Fail.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Certain groups who are christian are political. Christianity itself is a religion. There is a definite significant difference. Being able to use Christianity in politics does not make the entirety of Christianity political. Most churches I have been to do not discuss politics as part of the official activities of the church.

Fail.
 
jallman said:
And that still has nothing to do with a discussion about how we interact with one another confined within this message board.
Click to expand...

If christianity is political, then it is immune to protections from hate speech. The. End.

(and we both know it is).
 
HO-ley cah-rap. :shock:

Make a post or two, walk away and go work a shift, come home and it is flaming like a gas station on fire.

Look, I rendered an opinion that Toothpic's post was intended to be a denigrating slap at Christians in general, based on the association of the Swastika with nazi'ism and based on his history as a hater of Christianity. This would appear to be against forum rules on hate speech, whether you agree with them or not.

If the mods and/or Vauge choose to let it ride, I'll shrug, ignore it and carry on. Is that the reaction of the extremist you're painting me to be?

Islamofascist is a term very specific to those who use Islam as an excuse for violent jihad. I pointed out that it was not a slap at all Muslim-dom, as Toothpic's sig was probably intended to be towards Christianity...

Catz Part Deux said:
Translation: it's fine, when you do it to other people. As someone who is a non-believer, I hear "hate-speech" directed at non-believers on a continual basis. We're subhuman, we don't have faith, we're trying to undermine this country, we're unpatriotic, we're EVIL.

Suck it up.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I didn't deserve that as a reply to my post, Catz. I seriously doubt you could find any post on DP where I said anything like that. Yeah, I know, there are other people who have done so at times... but you're acting as if those few who do so are representative of all Christians and lumping me in with them. I think that is painting with too broad a brush, dear lady.



Catz Part Deux said:
Let me just say...if Christians don't want to be considered a political party, perhaps they should stop attempting to dictate their religious beliefs through political action.
Click to expand...

Again, too broad of a brush. There are Christians on the Right, and there are Christians on the Left, and there are Christians who deliberately disassociate themselves from politics. Christianity is primary a religion and secondarily a lifestyle... those for whom Christianity and politics are inexplicably intertwined are probably a tiny minority. As Dav rightly pointed out 75% of America professes Christianity, but far fewer profess the sort of far-right-wing stuff you're railing against. It's obvious that it is so, otherwise the 75% Christian majority would have everything their way.... which is equally obviously not happening.

I am rather surprised at the extreme vehemence of your posts in this thread, I wasn't aware that you had such a deep-seated bitterness against Christianity...and apparently, from the sound of it at least, against all individual Christians as well. (?)


I don't like his avatar any more than I like him or his attitude, but ultimately it is a big SO WHAT, it wasn't that big of a deal. If he gets to keep the stupid avatar then oh-well-whatever; I just ignore him anyway, like I do all those who prove themselves to be trolls-without-any-redeeming-features.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
If christianity is political, then it is immune to protections from hate speech. The. End.

(and we both know it is).
Click to expand...

If it were purely political, then you would have a point. However, it is not. You may not find anything in your life sacred and irreverence may be your vice, but for some of us on this board, that is a clear attack on the very fabric of who we are, where we come from, and how we live.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom