Hot Coffee Too Hot?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:
as you said, you know the term is not for you, nor even a majority of Christians. it is you (and a few others) who seek to make connections between yourselves and the very specific, very political group of people we are talking about who do possess, in the blueprints of their political designs, elements not unfamiliar with either fascism or the Taliban. i am pretty certain that neither Melon, or i, nor others would ever include you in that group, nor has anyone ever called you Christianist -- which is an adjective, not a noun. important distinction.

The use of the terms may not be aimed at any particular member here, but they are clearly designed to be inflammatory. And, with such undefined (or loosely defined) terms, you could we be including members here (including me) as the term is tossed around for various beliefs and actions.
 
nbcrusader said:


The use of the terms may not be aimed at any particular member here, but they are clearly designed to be inflammatory. And, with such undefined (or loosely defined) terms, you could we be including members here (including me) as the term is tossed around for various beliefs and actions.



i've defined it for you, and as i stated, it is not designed to be inflammatory but actually to be more sensitive to individuals such as yourself.

and "Islamist" is actually the most sophistocated term there is to describe a terrorist like we see in London, Egypt, etc. i remember working on a show about Afghanistan, and one of our script consultants was Peter Bergan, who insisted that the most accurate term would be "radical Islamist terrorist." the use of the word "Islamist" instead of "Muslim" was far more accurate and academic.

i think that applies to any religion, including Christianity. i am not saying we have "radical Christianist terrorists," but i am saying that we do have "radical Christianists" or perhaps "Christianist political activists."

to me, that's far more sensitive than if i were to say "christian political activists."

i am sorry if you still misunderstand the word, but i have done my best to explain what it means, and i will continue to use the word when in an appropriate context.
 
nbcrusader said:


The use of the terms may not be aimed at any particular member here, but they are clearly designed to be inflammatory. And, with such undefined (or loosely defined) terms, you could we be including members here (including me) as the term is tossed around for various beliefs and actions.

Out of curiosity, what term would you prefer to see used for the people Irvine was referring to as "Christianists"?
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


Out of curiosity, what term would you prefer to see used for the people Irvine was referring to as "Christianists"?

Actually, I think the need for a label misses the underlying point of the discussion. We successfully discuss many of the issues here - adding a label is short form derogatory work.
 
nbcrusader said:


Actually, I think the need for a label misses the underlying point of the discussion. We successfully discuss many of the issues here - adding a label is short form derogatory work.



but isn't a lable necessary for any discussion to occur? that is the very nature of politics -- individuals wrapping themselves around a constructed identity (whereas art might be considered the opposite -- the cry of the individual to distinguish himself from the masses).

i also suppose that i've been given a label by said groups, and i've been targeted as being a threat to other buzzwords like "values" and "family," so i don't feel as if it's at all inappropriate to give these groups names of their own.

and finally, we're not talking about individuals. we are talking about political groups, and groups have agendas and identities that are easily understood for the sake of political clarity.

if you were to express a strongly held conviction in a personal context, then it would be inappropriate (and probably wrong) to label it "Christianist." however, if a group advocates a boycotting of Kraft Foods because Kraft is a sponsor of the Gay Games, then i think it is entirely fair to lable that group "Christianist" especially when the American Family Association (who's mission statement, says, "The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth") tries to get their supporters to sign the following chain letter:


Dear Sir:

Kraft Foods' corporate leadership is openly sponsoring sodomy by backing Gay Games VII, an Olympic-style series of athletic and "cultural" events for homosexuals in Chicago this July. Your help is needed! Please go to ConservativePetitions.com to see what is at stake. Here's the address: http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=307

The associated debauchery and obscenity is well known, yet the company chose to risk its good reputation as a major sponsor of the event, which was created to promote acceptance of and increased participation in sodomy.

The Gay Games are infamous for immoral and lewd after-hours events. This year will be no exception. So come July the company that seeks to sell us Maxwell House coffee, Kool-Aid, Oscar Mayer, Jell-O, Oreo and Nabisco also will peddle sexual perversion! Here's where to say enough is enough: http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=307

Let Kraft know this is not right! Sign a petition urging corporate leadership to withdraw sponsorship or face a boycott. Let the decision-makers know Americans won't support Kraft Foods products in grocery stores if the company supports and encourages sodomy.

"Values voters" need to rethink the trusting, wholesome reputation that Kraft Foods enjoys in the market place. If the corporation insists on openly supporting sodomy, the American public has a right not to support Kraft. Drive that point home in the board room at: http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=307

-- ConservativePetitions.com

P.S. This isn't "hate" or "discrimination" toward homosexuals. Far from it. It's the right of millions of Americans, who loyally purchase Kraft products, to express their opinion on the company's decision to link itself with such a perverted disgrace. Act now and then direct others to: http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=307
 
I don't hate or practice discrimination against the Christian Taliban, but it's the right of millions of Americans to express their opinion on such a perverted disgrace.

Haha...I love Christian Taliban logic. It would have made medieval hermeticists quite proud.

Melon
 
Heh, melon. Yeah, the whole free speech thing, entitled to express their own opinions and all that...

...but there's still been numerous times where I just wish with all my heart that groups like the AFA would grow the hell up and get a life already. That is so moronic, this latest move of theirs :rolleyes: :tsk: :coocoo:.

Angela
 
The American Family Association makes me sick. They're in my back yard, so to speak, because they were originally founded in Mississippi and are very strong in Alabama. Idiots like this practically run my state. :mad: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
Irvine and melon,
Please give me an honest answer. How would you feel if I started throwing around the term "Homosexual Perverts" all the time, but I'm actually only referring to that small segment of homosexuals that dress and act lewdly during gay pride parades?

Would you like it if i kept posting article after article about the "homosexual perverts", and brought it up every chance I got?
 
80sU2isBest said:
Irvine and melon,
Please give me an honest answer. How would you feel if I started throwing around the term "Homosexual Perverts" all the time, but I'm actually only referring to that small segment of homosexuals that dress and act lewdly during gay pride parades?

Would you like it if i kept posting article after article about the "homosexual perverts", and brought it up every chance I got?



are the homosexual perverts trying to force you to engage in their sex acts via legislation and heavily monied political action groups that have the ear of the White House?

also, have you made the consistent, coherent effort to distinguish between a select group of self-defined individuals, or are you tossing it around whenever the situation calls for?

you see, you can't make this one-to-one comparison. it doesn't hold any water whatsoever -- comparing someone on a float in a parade and a highly organized group like Focus on the Family. and it plays directly into NBC's earlier point: labels are useless when it comes to individuals (which a person on a float would be). however, labels are useful and necessary in political discourse when groups have self-defined by such labels.

you could, however, draw a comparison with certain groups that are self-defined as "radical" -- Act Up! in the 1980s was like this as they went around outing many, many local and state level politicians, as well as other celebrities, in response to the AIDS crisis and the Reagan administration's refusal to do anything about it.

but a comparison as you set it up ... sorry, you'll have to do a little more work than that.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


And you complain about "tit-for-tat" comparisons between Christianity and Islam?

Only when it is endlessly tossed into threads that have nothing to do with the two religions.

If we are going to accept new and inventive terms to express ourselves, what is that to you?
 
Irvine511 said:

you could, however, draw a comparison with certain groups that are self-defined as "radical" -- Act Up! in the 1980s was like this as they went around outing many, many local and state level politicians, as well as other celebrities, in response to the AIDS crisis and the Reagan administration's refusal to do anything about it.

Now, in a labeling scheme, would Act Up! qualify as a "Gay Taliban"?
 
nbcrusader said:


Only when it is endlessly tossed into threads that have nothing to do with the two religions.

If we are going to accept new and inventive terms to express ourselves, what is that to you?

I really couldn't care less about these new and inventive terms. I just found it amusing that someone who complains so bitterly about what he regards as "tit-for-tat" comparisons between religions was so gleeful about the opportunity to describe other groups as the Taliban in revenge for others using the phrase Christian Taliban. Tit-for-tat anyone?
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


I really couldn't care less about these new and inventive terms. I just found it amusing that someone who complains so bitterly about what he regards as "tit-for-tat" comparisons between religions was so gleeful about the opportunity to describe other groups as the Taliban in revenge for others using the phrase Christian Taliban. Tit-for-tat anyone?

Simply mocking the idea.

Not creating a holy war mentality between two religions.
 
nbcrusader said:


Simply mocking the idea.

Not creating a holy war mentality between two religions.

I thought I was the one doing the mocking in this conversation.

And in what way does pointing out that there are extremists in every religion create a "holy war mentality" between religions? Surely the reverse - claiming that only one religion has extremist adherents - is more likely to create that mentality.
 
nbcrusader said:


Now, in a labeling scheme, would Act Up! qualify as a "Gay Taliban"?



no.

they do not have a list of rules based upon the subjective interpretation of a document of dubious record for the government of all society. they resorted to what was considered radical means to bring attention to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.

there are some who view the movement towards gay marriage as something of a selling out and an acquiescence to the dominant culture, a way of begging to be colonized. they assert that instead of trying to adopt the customs of the dominant culture, gay people should fight for the legitimacy and recognition (or fight against all legitimacy and recognition) for a variety of relationships and lifestyles -- this would include polygamy, open marriages, non-married partners, etc. this might be, in effect, a radical viewpoint, but it applies only to a specific issue. there is no movement to force others to abide by the same rules, just either an accepting of new rules or of the rejection of all rules.
 
Irvine511 said:
no.

they do not have a list of rules based upon the subjective interpretation of a document of dubious record for the government of all society. they resorted to what was considered radical means to bring attention to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.

On what do they base their rule set? Is this a rule set that should be commonly accepted?
 
nbcrusader said:
So if I create a rule set and call it "not religion," I can force it on others?



no. you're not weilding the imagined power of the Almighty.

who are you?

but hey, when you tell me that it's not you, but *through* you, that God is making rules, then you can start to control people.
 
Point, Crusader. Your serve, Irvine?

I think there is a lot to be said about the danger of the religious right, but I think religion is the excuse and not the reason for these people. Aren't there other driving forces besides religion that seek unreasonable control? Who want to impose?



Oops. Sorry, Irvine. You already served. My question still stands.
 
Irvine511 said:

are the homosexual perverts trying to force you to engage in their sex acts via legislation and heavily monied political action groups that have the ear of the White House?

No, but what difference does that make when it comes to the appropriateness of using inflammatory labels?

Irvine511 said:
also, have you made the consistent, coherent effort to distinguish between a select group of self-defined individuals, or are you tossing it around whenever the situation calls for?


There are many times that a dictinction has not been made clear when you guys throw out the labels. And other times, the labels have been thrown out against people who simply disagree with you. The book-burners, for instance; they aren't trying to force their views on anyone - they are simply showing people how they feel about the book. That is apparently enough for some people to call them Christofascists and compare them to the KKK and the Taliban.


Irvine511 said:
you see, you can't make this one-to-one comparison. it doesn't hold any water whatsoever -- comparing someone on a float in a parade and a highly organized group like Focus on the Family. and it plays directly into NBC's earlier point: labels are useless when it comes to individuals (which a person on a float would be). however, labels are useful and necessary in political discourse when groups have self-defined by such labels.

That would be fine and dandy if I were comparing the two groups of people, but I'm not. I'm comparing the appropriateness of the use of inflammatory labels, and you haven't convinced me that there's any difference in the two examples.
 
80sU2isBest said:


No, but what difference does that make when it comes to the appropriateness of using inflammatory labels?



That would be fine and dandy if I were comparing the two groups of people, but I'm not. I'm comparing the appropriateness of the use of inflammatory labels, and you haven't convinced me that there's any difference in the two examples.



are you ignoring what i've written? "Christianist" is NOT an inflammatory label, unless you're just waiting to be offended. if you pay attention to the part of speech the term is (adjective) and it's intention (to further highlight the differences between politicized Christianity and personal Christianity), then you'd see that 1) it's a term of sensitivity (just as any Muslim would want to distingush between "Islamic" and "Islamist"), and 2) you have absolutely no basis in comparing someone with the mighty political clout of Jerry Fallwell to some 42 year old bear swinging in a sling on a float on a hot Saturday afternoon in July.
 
BonosSaint said:
Point, Crusader. Your serve, Irvine?

I think there is a lot to be said about the danger of the religious right, but I think religion is the excuse and not the reason for these people. Aren't there other driving forces besides religion that seek unreasonable control? Who want to impose?



Oops. Sorry, Irvine. You already served. My question still stands.



i don't know how many times i can keep repeating myself.

"Christianist" is a POLITICAL term used to distinguish between something that is necessarily Christian (belief in Christ as savior) versus a political agenda that has appropriated a version of Christianity (that women should be obediant to their husbands). one is Christian, the other is Christianist.

religion is not their excuse, it is their tool (and sometimes weapon).
 
Irvine511 said:
are you ignoring what i've written? "Christianist" is NOT an inflammatory label, unless you're just waiting to be offended.

Is inflammatory measured by the user of the word, or by the hearer?

There are a number of terms that are deemed inflammatory (non-PC). Couldn't you simply argue that the hearer of the "inflammatory" word was simply waiting to be offended?

Take "the 'N' word" for example. An African American uses the word, no problem. A Caucasian uses the word, inflammatory. The Caucasian’s intent is irrelevant.
 
Irvine511 said:
"Christianist" is a POLITICAL term used to distinguish between something that is necessarily Christian (belief in Christ as savior) versus a political agenda that has appropriated a version of Christianity (that women should be obediant to their husbands). one is Christian, the other is Christianist.

Your example is flawed. A rational biblical argument can be made for a wife submitting to a husband.

What you deem "necessary" for Christian belief and "political" is where you get into trouble.
 
Back
Top Bottom