• 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!

Religions of HATE!

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm agnostic.
Click to expand...

And I didn't imply that you were of any faith, only that you are defending biblical morality, which is inconsistent.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Then explain this photo of Fred Phelps and his wife with Al and Tipper Gore:

gore-with-phelps2.jpg
Click to expand...

:shock: I'm convinced!

I've got pictures of my mom and Clinton, they mean nothing.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya actually it was because when Christ arrived on the scene he said that his followers would not follow the old traditions; such as, stoning to death.
Click to expand...

Oh I got that, the reason I said that you didn't answer my question is because this NEW morality does not explain how god's old "morality" could be considered moral.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Not if you read the early life of Christ found in the books about him that didn't make it into the bible called the Apocrypha. Jesus sinned as a child
Click to expand...

I've read them, and again I never said that Jesus hadn't ever sinned. I said that this passage suggests that it would be moral for one free of sin, which Christ is as some Christian apologists suggest (which I do not claim, I do not believe in sin.) These Christians reject any gospel outside of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

If you're not a Christian fundamentalist, why are you defending them, and then using Gnostic Christian gospels as if they weren't a straw man?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ask Iran or any fundamentalist Islamic nation there is.
Click to expand...

Why should I bother? I know it to be immoral, and faith based "because god said so, and he's god" responses don't cut it.
 
nes said:
I don't understand exactly what impact this religious group (in america) has caused. If someone here can point out kidnappings, killings, and car bombings that this "hateful religion" caused then present it right now. If they don't kidnap, kill, or car bomb then why do you care? USA is a nation of freedom of religion, I myself don't care about Muslims as residents in the US.

And even if this group was a hateful group, so what? What are you gonna do? Kick them out of the US? Arrest them? What laws have they broken?

I don't see your point. My point is that this Christian group should be allowed regardless of how radical its beliefs are as long as they are following laws. My point also being that so what? Who cares if a group is extremist, what is the big deal?
Click to expand...

Hateful bigotry is wrong, its divisive, and its hurtful. It effects many peoples socialization, and can exacerbate childhood trauma. Its the kind of stuff that bad children are made out of, and these bad children who have nothing to lose ruin the life experience of otherwise good children. Then they grow up to be bad people who have children.

Dangerous dogma is also something that should be more of a concern. It often opposes science, promotes ignorance and unintelligent thinking. It effects our educational system, and our hinders medical research.

It is also a matter of life and death for the 3 million people who die from aids in subsaharan Africa, where the only condom use information available is from the local ministry that preaches its sinfulness.

Who cares about hate? Who cares about violence? Who cares about extremism? Who cares about death? Obviously not you.
 
nes said:
Who cares if a group is extremist, what is the big deal?
Click to expand...

Extremist groups, even Christian extremist groups, threaten our American way of life and the freedoms that we have grown fond of. Basically Christian extremist groups have gotten a free pass because well....they're CHRISTIAN...what could be bad about that?

Here is another story about youth recruitment for militant Christianity:

Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith

"the recent "Battle Cry" rally in Philadelphia, where a crowd of about 25,000 -- mostly teenagers and young adults -- pledged their fealty to a vision of a theocratic Christian nation. This pledge was obtained, mostly, by scaring the crap out of them,

That was clear from this account on DKos:

But BattleCry Philadelphia was more than just a vulgar carnival designed to suck donations into the coffers of Ron Luce's corporation "Teen Mania". Indeed, it had a point, to recruit the future elite "warriors" in the coming battle against the separation of church and state."


More about BattleCry:

Truthdig - Reports - Battle Cry for Theocracy

"If you’ve been waiting to get alarmed until the Christian fascist movement started filling stadiums with young people and hyping them up to do battle in “God’s army,” wait no longer.

In recent weeks, BattleCry, a Christian fundamentalist youth movement, has attracted more than 25,000 people to mega-rally rock concerts in San Francisco and Detroit, and this weekend it plans to fill Wachovia Stadium in Philadelphia.

The leaders of BattleCry claim that their religion and values are under attack, but amid spectacular light shows, Hummers, Navy SEALs and military imagery on stage, it is BattleCry that has declared war on everyone else. Its leader, Ron Luce, insists: “This is war. And Jesus invites us to get into the action, telling us that the violent—the ‘forceful’ ones—will lay hold of the kingdom.”

BattleCry is a part of the evangelical organization Teen Mania, and you can learn a lot about the kind of society that Teen Mania is fighting for by reading up on its Honor Academy, a non-accredited educational institution that offers directed internships to 700 undergraduate and graduate youth each year. Among the academy’s tenets: Homosexuality and masturbation are sins. Interns are forbidden to listen to secular music, watch R-rated movies or date; men can’t use the Internet unsupervised; the length of women’s skirts is regulated. The logic behind this—that men must be protected from the sin of sexual temptation—is what drives Islamic fundamentalists to shroud women in burkhas!"
 
BodiSatva said:
I don't either...and nobody eluded to that in that video either.

I heard..."There is an excitement and there is a peace to it" and I heard people wary of a violent enemy and I saw people being fanatical. But I saw ZERO violence and I heard NOTHING that indicated hurting anybody.

"This means war" at the end sounded like a call to awaking people about politics. That phrase can take many meanings and that entire movie seems absolutely biased and I wouldn't waste another second with the obvious agenda behind it.

...oh yeah, I am not Christian nor religious in any way, shape or form.

I still stand by my original comments. I am also open to any argument that might present Christianity or those involved as violent and militant as Islam. The problem is that nowhere, not even the KKK, do you see the hate and the violence that you do in Islam. Even if it is a minority, it is still an alarmingly large number of people.

Who has something else?

Astound me...
Click to expand...
With constant constant references to how palestinian school kids are taught to learn hand grennades - you don't think this is the spread of violence and hatred?
An army of christ, what does an army do exactly other than to kill?
ARe there as many radical moronic crazy christians as there are islamic ones ? Honestly I don't know. The big difference between here and there is there is no rule of law there. Here we are a governed lawful society; there they don't even have a government.
Islam's "crusade" against israel or the west has far more to do with control and power than it does with religious beliefs clashing. The news we get is only the tip of the ice berg, we only see the violence and bloodshed because that is what is "newsworthy".
Our military hawks on this site present to us the most violent of stories as well because let's face it - when they are sent into a situation keep in mind it's a situation that already requires their presence - use of force.
They have crazy muslims, we have crazy christians. It's just our crazy christians do not have the ability to topple our government forces. In their world, they have that ability. WE look at our crazy christians and mock and laugh; in that world those crazy muslims are not laughed at but feared because their government is too weak.
 
nes said:
I don't see your point. My point is that this Christian group should be allowed regardless of how radical its beliefs are as long as they are following laws. My point also being that so what? Who cares if a group is extremist, what is the big deal?
Click to expand...
Why should we be tolerant of intolerance?
 
TheHarshTruth said:
There are schools and there are schools. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oxford are 2nd tier schools meant for kids of rich parents. They turn out the leaders of the market place. Then there are the 2nd tier schools for the smart kids. The UC system and a few others like it. The first rate schools are MIT, Stanford, and the Cal Techs of the world. Everybody who's honest with themselves know this.
Click to expand...

TheHarshTruth said:
I don't have much respect for oxford or most of the ivy leagues. Stanford is the only decent school in the bunch and I do respect it. Greatly. It's by far the best university in the world. Not oxford. Oxford can and should stay in that little inbred country full of people who can't speak english right.
Click to expand...


:lol: Stanford troll.:2razz:
 
RightatNYU said:
:lol: Stanford troll.:2razz:
Click to expand...

Oh don't even get me started. I've taken a few classes from NYU. Reminded me of JH, not even HS. And Columbia? Well lets just say they are both in NYC, nothing more needs to be said.
 
TheHarshTruth said:
Oh don't even get me started. I've taken a few classes from NYU. Reminded me of JH, not even HS. And Columbia? Well lets just say they are both in NYC, nothing more needs to be said.
Click to expand...

Don't recall where I said anything about NYU. Just noting your rather interesting love for Stanford and contempt for Yale, Harvard, Columbia, etc etc.

Out of curiosity, what classes did you take at NYU?
 
RightatNYU said:
Don't recall where I said anything about NYU. Just noting your rather interesting love for Stanford and contempt for Yale, Harvard, Columbia, etc etc.

Out of curiosity, what classes did you take at NYU?
Click to expand...

Some classes on oracle. Figured I'd get some structured learning in.
 
jfuh
Why should we be tolerant of intolerance?
Click to expand...

That is a really good question. I don't think that we should. That is the issue that we are confronting as a society right now. Though it is being handled horribly and the public does not understand the true extent of the problem...we should not be tolerant of intolerance.
 
BodiSatva said:
That is a really good question. I don't think that we should. That is the issue that we are confronting as a society right now. Though it is being handled horribly and the public does not understand the true extent of the problem...we should not be tolerant of intolerance.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I don't know what it is, a refusal to address the issues or banking on the support of intolerance.
 
Originally Posted by jfuh
Exactly. I don't know what it is, a refusal to address the issues or banking on the support of intolerance.
Click to expand...

Gandhi was not Tolerant of Intolerance. He shoved the oppression and hypocrisy right back in the face of the British. Of course, he was banking on the British falling back on their morals when confronted with this issue, and it worked. What we are facing now is different. We are seeing beheadings and suicide bombings of innocent and there is no respect for life. We are in big trouble IMO.
 
Johnny_Utah said:
Gandhi was not Tolerant of Intolerance. He shoved the oppression and hypocrisy right back in the face of the British. Of course, he was banking on the British falling back on their morals when confronted with this issue, and it worked. What we are facing now is different. We are seeing beheadings and suicide bombings of innocent and there is no respect for life. We are in big trouble IMO.
Click to expand...

Ghandi was a racist pedophile! Actually the word pedophile is too strong, he only slept naked with naked little girls.
 
Johnny_Utah said:
Gandhi was not Tolerant of Intolerance. He shoved the oppression and hypocrisy right back in the face of the British. Of course, he was banking on the British falling back on their morals when confronted with this issue, and it worked. What we are facing now is different. We are seeing beheadings and suicide bombings of innocent and there is no respect for life. We are in big trouble IMO.
Click to expand...
Suicide bombings, no respect for life, beheadings - indifferent from wars of a bygone era and with identical goals - rise to power.
 
Originally Posted by jfuh
Suicide bombings, no respect for life, beheadings - indifferent from wars of a bygone era and with identical goals - rise to power.
Click to expand...

Well, it sounds as if we agree. The whole thing stinks and we are in a quagmireof a quagmire!
 
Originally Posted by Lachean
Ghandi was a racist pedophile! Actually the word pedophile is too strong, he only slept naked with naked little girls.
Click to expand...

Is that just a fact that you find interesting or does it actually relate to the fact that his tactics were brilliant and he helped his Movement kick out one of the worlds greatest Empires. That, AND the fact that I made a parallel to what we are facing now...so, go ahead.
 
Johnny_Utah said:
Why does it seem that any religion other than Christianity is able to publicly state Hate Speech and that their right to discuss their feelings is acceptable, since we don't want to suppress any people's "Religious Beliefs". But with Christians it is not acceptable. Are other religions more mysterious? What is the psychological thing that allows people to accept this double standard. If we saw thousands of christians in London marching and screaming Death to Islam...Death to Persians! There would be an outcry like you have never heard from our media, but we are shown media of them doing so all of the time, over cartoons, over just about anything.

Is an open discussion even possible?

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I guess all those Catholics who tortured people were okay.
 
Johnny_Utah said:
Is that just a fact that you find interesting
Click to expand...

I find it discrediting to the "Holier than Thou" pedestal that people put him on.

Johnny_Utah said:
or does it actually relate to the fact that his tactics were brilliant and he helped his Movement kick out one of the worlds greatest Empires.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with that fact, only the "brilliance."

Johnny_Utah said:
That, AND the fact that I made a parallel to what we are facing now...so, go ahead.
Click to expand...

Ghandi took on a sovereign nation, an empire, an enemy bold enough to stand against you on a battlefield.

What we are facing is far more devious, guerrilla, and cowardly. Forgive me if if I found myself unimpressed with your parallel. Pacifism isn't the answer.
 
billybobama said:
I guess all those Catholics who tortured people were okay.
Click to expand...

You kidding, they made Augustine a Saint, and he said heretics should be tortured outright. His arguments for torture paved the way for the inquisition.

They did the same for ol Thomas Aquinas ("Kill the heretics.")
 
Originally Posted by billybobama
I guess all those Catholics who tortured people were okay.
Click to expand...

1. Why do you think that this makes their actions OK?
2. How does then relate to now?
 
I don't think that Pacifism is the answer. Stop assuming.

Lachean...Dude. You jumped into a point that jfuh and I were making and I honestly don't think that you understand what my "parallel" is even about. Not that you can't understand it, just that you aren't understanding it. We are apparently debating off of a mis-understanding now.

I am talking about NOT being tolerant of Intolerance. I gave ONE parallel and that happened to be from a pacifist. So? Who cares about Gandhi? If you have an issue with him, please don't let that cloud your thinking about the issue that I am talking about. In WWII we kicked ***. That is fine too. There are Intolerant people out there (terrorists and such that are be-heading people) and we need to convince them that we are not an enemy, but a trading partner and that we can co-habitate with them instead...OR WE NEED TO KILL THEM.
 
Johnny_Utah said:
I don't think that Pacifism is the answer. Stop assuming.

Lachean...Dude. You jumped into a point that jfuh and I were making and I honestly don't think that you understand what my "parallel" is even about. Not that you can't understand it, just that you aren't understanding it. We are apparently debating off of a mis-understanding now.

I am talking about NOT being tolerant of Intolerance. I gave ONE parallel and that happened to be from a pacifist. So? Who cares about Gandhi? If you have an issue with him, please don't let that cloud your thinking about the issue that I am talking about. In WWII we kicked ***. That is fine too. There are Intolerant people out there (terrorists and such that are be-heading people) and we need to convince them that we are not an enemy, but a trading partner and that we can co-habitate with them instead...OR WE NEED TO KILL THEM.
Click to expand...

It seems I misjudged you, I retract my previous statements, and apologize for my presumption.

I thought your position in that post represented the entirety of your point, which is what happens when you go on assuming that you know what was going on in the previous page. Carry on...
 
Dude Lachean, that is why I like you. You take responsibility for what you say like only a few at this site do. No sweat. No need to apologize, you were not insulting and it was only a misunderstanding.

Carry on we shall... :lol:
 
I think between the three of us we've pretty much settled the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom