Hot Coffee Too Hot?

[BonosSaint]

I agree with you, Irvine, in many ways. I was commenting on your statement that "Religion. It's all religion" which I may be taking out of context. It gets a little confusing following this at times.

I have understood your distinctions about political and Christianist and not having a dog in the hunt, I'm just following the discussions.

Here is where I think the danger of political interference by religion:

1. It is often used by unscrupulous people to further
a political agenda by creating an us against them
philosophy. They often create an atmosphere of
fear by creating a belief that secularists endanger
the practice of their religion. I think some inept moves
by secularists sometimes feed into that belief.
2. I think rightwing religious groups and sometimes churches
themselves are attractive to people who have certain
dangerous biases. (And other groups do the same thing.) I
will not use the term fundamentalist in this forum
because some Christians have a different definition of this
than secularists do and I will honor their definition.
3. Sometimes I think some of the political wing of the right,
uses religion as a smokescreen--creating a furor around what
some people may consider vice or personal immorality while
the real intent is profit and power. They are climbing on the
backs of generally sincere, normally harmless people. They
point out the "sins" of others to avoid accountability for their
own.

That being said, it is not just religion, although religion often attempts to interfere in the personal lives of people. It is bad corporations, lobbyists, etc., and sometimes liberal institutions.
I agree, religion is often the tool. But it is not the only one.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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.

Now who's ignoring? I told you I'm not comparing the two groups of people; i'm comparing the use of the labels.

 

[melon]

Whatever. When a conservative can write a book calling a group of mostly liberals the "100 people who are screwing America" and a high-ranking Republican senator can imply that gays are Nazis that hate America, I can call out the "Christian Taliban" all I want. I refuse to let conservatives control the discourse any longer, when they feel free to slander their enemies with any number of names that they want.

If one hears the term, "Christian Taliban," and thinks it refers to themselves, then maybe it's time to reevaluate your belief system as to why you think you'd fit in with them. The "Christian Taliban" and their sympathizers are the greatest non-foreign threat to America today.

Melon

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

You know, perhaps we all should stop using terms like Christianist. Next time someone posts an article about some lunatic on the religious right seeking to make homosexuality illegal or burning books whose content they dislike, we should make sure our responses refer to them only as "Christians" since any other label appears to be regarded offensive. Yes, let's just refer to them as Christians and see how the posters who complain about terms like "Christianist" like that.

 

[BonosSaint]

I defer to everyone in this thread and remove myself from the discussion. At some point, I thought the discussion would move a little further. I can see both sides and where each is coming from. Don't think it's going to get resolved.

 

[nbcrusader]

You know, perhaps we all should stop using terms like Christianist. Next time someone posts an article about some lunatic on the religious right seeking to make homosexuality illegal or burning books whose content they dislike, we should make sure our responses refer to them only as "Christians" since any other label appears to be regarded offensive. Yes, let's just refer to them as Christians and see how the posters who complain about terms like "Christianist" like that.

That's the spirit!

 

[Irvine511]

That's the spirit!

that does seem to be what you'd prefer.

okay, from now on, people who burn Harry Potter books are simply Christians.

Fred Phelps is a Christian.

etc, etc.

forgive me for seeking to elevate the level of discourse through accuracy in language.

so ... since you're a Christian, and i am not allowed to further specify, i am then going to assume that any and all beliefs espoused by any of the following people or groups -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Randall Terry, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, etc. -- are also precisely in alignment with your own beliefs since you call yourself Christian, and they call themselves Christians, so you must all think EXACTLY the same thing! after all, i've tried to make distinctions, but you (and 80s) have resisted such distinctions! fair enough!

 

[Irvine511]

Now who's ignoring? I told you I'm not comparing the two groups of people; i'm comparing the use of the labels.

but labels must be appropriate to the groups to which they describe.

not "appropriate" in a proprietary sense; but "appropriate" in an accuracy sense.

and you're totally missing the issue of politicalization.

 

[Irvine511]

I agree with you, Irvine, in many ways. I was commenting on your statement that "Religion. It's all religion" which I may be taking out of context. It gets a little confusing following this at times.

I have understood your distinctions about political and Christianist and not having a dog in the hunt, I'm just following the discussions.

Here is where I think the danger of political interference by religion:

1. It is often used by unscrupulous people to further
a political agenda by creating an us against them
philosophy. They often create an atmosphere of
fear by creating a belief that secularists endanger
the practice of their religion. I think some inept moves
by secularists sometimes feed into that belief.
2. I think rightwing religious groups and sometimes churches
themselves are attractive to people who have certain
dangerous biases. (And other groups do the same thing.) I
will not use the term fundamentalist in this forum
because some Christians have a different definition of this
than secularists do and I will honor their definition.
3. Sometimes I think some of the political wing of the right,
uses religion as a smokescreen--creating a furor around what
some people may consider vice or personal immorality while
the real intent is profit and power. They are climbing on the
backs of generally sincere, normally harmless people. They
point out the "sins" of others to avoid accountability for their
own.

That being said, it is not just religion, although religion often attempts to interfere in the personal lives of people. It is bad corporations, lobbyists, etc., and sometimes liberal institutions.
I agree, religion is often the tool. But it is not the only one.

yes, i agree. though i will argue that while religion is a tool (or weapon), it is a UNIQUE weapon that holds more power than any other.

such is the nature of the absolute.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

the N word is a poor example, due to its history. try again.

if the hearer is deliberately choosing to be offended -- at this point, that's the only explanation that i can come up with for you and 80s ... you're really giving the Far Left a run for the money when it comes to the pursuit of victimization! -- then it's not the fault of the user.

i've defined the word, over and over and over, and the word is used in the news media usually in relation to islam -- as i've said, it's is a mark of sensitivity to say "an Islamist radical" rather than "an Islamic radical" -- and i don't understand what it is you don't understand.

 

[nbcrusader]

that does seem to be what you'd prefer.

okay, from now on, people who burn Harry Potter books are simply Christians.

Fred Phelps is a Christian.

etc, etc.

forgive me for seeking to elevate the level of discourse through accuracy in language.

so ... since you're a Christian, and i am not allowed to further specify, i am then going to assume that any and all beliefs espoused by any of the following people or groups -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Randall Terry, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, etc. -- are also precisely in alignment with your own beliefs since you call yourself Christian, and they call themselves Christians, so you must all think EXACTLY the same thing! after all, i've tried to make distinctions, but you (and 80s) have resisted such distinctions! fair enough!

You seem intent on vilifying people instead of discussing the ideas.

 

[nbcrusader]

the N word is a poor example, due to its history. try again.

if the hearer is deliberately choosing to be offended -- at this point, that's the only explanation that i can come up with for you and 80s ... you're really giving the Far Left a run for the money when it comes to the pursuit of victimization! -- then it's not the fault of the user.

i've defined the word, over and over and over, and the word is used in the news media usually in relation to islam -- as i've said, it's is a mark of sensitivity to say "an Islamist radical" rather than "an Islamic radical" -- and i don't understand what it is you don't understand.

Nice dodge.

The standard you are applying for your own term is not the standard you would apply to other terms.

When Christians start blowing themselves up to kill others, perhaps we can revisit your labels.

 

[80sU2isBest]

You seem intent on vilifying people instead of discussing the ideas.

yes, he does.

 

[Irvine511]

You seem intent on vilifying people instead of discussing the ideas.

garbage. and you know it. and way to avoid ANYTHING i wrote in that post.

am i going to vilify Fred Phelps and his ilk? absolutely. same for every single person on that link Melon posted. why? because they want to destroy me, and they want to destroy anyone who isn't like them. not necessarily physically destroy, but they do not want to live in a secular, pluralist society. and they would agree with me on that, absolutely.

unless you think these ideas have merit. as i've said, i've struggled to distinguish between these self-described Christians -- you know, the "Christianists" -- and the myriad versions and visions of Christianity i've seen expressed on this board.

you'd rather me not do that, apparently.

when you're ready to move beyond this, and come to realize that what i'm doing is far, far, far more nuanced than you're willing to coutenance, do let me know.

 

[Irvine511]

Nice dodge.

The standard you are applying for your own term is not the standard you would apply to other terms.

When Christians start blowing themselves up to kill others, perhaps we can revisit your labels.

Christians aren't blowing themselves up because most of them live in modern, secular democracies and they're the dominant religion in the world today. when you take into account the dire state of the Islamic world -- where if you add up all the GDPs of these countries you get a GDP that is less than the GDP of Spain -- and combine it with an American foreign policy that has done an effective job of radicalizing the discourse in Mosques, it's rather obvious where the suicidal jihad mentality comes from.

luckily, it does not presently afflict Christianity.

but that's a short-sighted historical viewpoint, "Crusader" (hint, hint).

i return to the point again and again and again: there is potential within ALL religions for suicidal bombings. it's due to the nature of religion itself, the connection it posits to that which is absolute, that can turn men into monsters.

and it can do the opposite.

and for you to think that Christianity is somehow 1) superior, and 2) exempt from this basic religious template is delusional.

 

[Irvine511]

yes, he does.

well done.

got anything else to add?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

That's the spirit!

Really?

I would have thought it would offend Christians if we talked about the people burning Harry Potter books or the people sending their gay son to an "ex-gay" school without specifying that they represent a particular group within Christianity and aren't representative of Christians as a whole.

Honestly, you would prefer we used phrases like these, instead of distinguishing between mainstream Christianity and those who have been described as the Christian Taliban?

"How stupid can these Christians get?"

"Silly Christians on CNN burning Harry Potter books"

 

[Irvine511]

Really?

I would have thought it would offend Christians if we talked about the people burning Harry Potter books or the people sending their gay son to an "ex-gay" school without specifying that they represent a particular group within Christianity and aren't representative of Christians as a whole.

Honestly, you would prefer we used phrases like these, instead of distinguishing between mainstream Christianity and those who have been described as the Christian Taliban?

"How stupid can these Christians get?"

"Silly Christians on CNN burning Harry Potter books"

you see, all NBC and 80s appear to want is to be victims. seriously: why come here if you don't want to be challenged? no matter what is said, no matter the lengths someone goes to in order to make distinctions, they're just waiting to be offended and to say, in effect, "see! you're no better than those you decry!"

which is bullshit. i'm very happy to let the Christian Taliban, those of Christianist political activist groups, say and do and preach whatever they want. it's their country too.

however, they do not believe that this is my country. they believe this is God's country, and faggots ain't got no place in it. neither do Jews. or Muslims. or liberals. or feminists.

(remember, those people caused 9-11).

i do not believe for a minute that NBC and 80s agree with any of the above. but they seem to be begging to be placed into that group.

i don't understand.

at least you understand.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Well, once again, Maddox hits it right on the head.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=ticket_to_hell

 

[nbcrusader]

garbage. and you know it. and way to avoid ANYTHING i wrote in that post.

am i going to vilify Fred Phelps and his ilk? absolutely. same for every single person on that link Melon posted. why? because they want to destroy me, and they want to destroy anyone who isn't like them. not necessarily physically destroy, but they do not want to live in a secular, pluralist society. and they would agree with me on that, absolutely.

unless you think these ideas have merit. as i've said, i've struggled to distinguish between these self-described Christians -- you know, the "Christianists" -- and the myriad versions and visions of Christianity i've seen expressed on this board.

you'd rather me not do that, apparently.

when you're ready to move beyond this, and come to realize that what i'm doing is far, far, far more nuanced than you're willing to coutenance, do let me know.

Bull.

In most posts, you are vilifying the ideas Phelps spreads.

You've caught onto Melon's cute "taliban" label and ran with it.

The distinctions you offer don't hold water as principle. But you've been more than willing to offer that the rules are different when you deem religion involved.

 

[melon]

I will not let the Christian Taliban smear and monopolize what it means to be Christian. Perhaps I should just call them what people would have called them 500 years ago: "heretics."

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Bull.

In most posts, you are vilifying the ideas Phelps spreads.

You've caught onto Melon's cute "taliban" label and ran with it.

The distinctions you offer don't hold water as principle. But you've been more than willing to offer that the rules are different when you deem religion involved.

um, what would you like me to do with Phelps' ideas?

i don't use the Taliban label much, but i'll defend it's use. i have used, consistently and appropriately, the "Christianist" label and will continue to do so because it's appropriate.

the distinctions i offer? so there's no distinction to be made between you, and Pax, and Sherry Darling, and 80s, and Fred Phelps? you're all the same? is that what you're trying to say?

and, yes, religion does change the rules. as i've said, repeatedly, it's a unique phenomenon and must be understood on it's own terms.

 

[Irvine511]

silly me, forgot something important:

while we don't have suicide bombings by self-described Christians, we have ample evidence of violent tactics: shootings of doctors, bombings of clinics, the Olympics, gay clubs, etc.

so don't think, for a second, that Christianity is immune from the perverted violence that afflicts Islam right now.

 

[melon]

Yes, but when WASPs aren't the target of terrorism, it doesn't matter, remember?

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Heh, personally, the one word I use describe people like Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell and people along that line, as well as the extremists from any other religion, is the word "idiots". Because that's pretty much what they are, imho.

Angela

 

[80sU2isBest]

well done.

got anything else to add?

Yes, I do.

You say that you use "distinction between certain types of Christianity" out of sensitivity to Christians who you don't think are "the Christian taliban" and comparable to Nazis and the KKK. But the problem with that is that I don't think you're being honest with yourself or us. I think you do indeed villify not only those who act in a certain way politically, but also those who have even certain beliefs about homosexuality and other issues. I think that you would call me the Christian Taliban for simply believing that homosexuality is wrong or that homosexuals should not be able to adopt. I base that on the fact that you have said those beliefs "fan the flames of hatred". Am I correct in assuming that you would call me the "Christian Taliban"?

 

[melon]

You say that you use "distinction between certain types of Christianity" out of sensitivity to Christians who you don't think are "the Christian taliban" and comparable to Nazis and the KKK. But the problem with that is that I don't think you're being honest with yourself or us. I think you do indeed villify not only those who act in a certain way politically, but also those who have even certain beliefs about homosexuality and other issues. I think that you would call me the Christian Taliban for simply believing that homosexuality is wrong or that homosexuals should not be able to adopt. I base that on the fact that you have said those beliefs "fan the flames of hatred". Am I correct in assuming that you would call me the "Christian Taliban"?

If you believe that your prejudices should be legislated, then yes, you'd be part of the "Christian Taliban." It would be no different than the KKK or the Nazis who are bigoted and actively push to make their bigotry law.

Now those who are openly bigoted, but recognize that there shouldn't be laws against the target of their prejudice (like the average run-of-the-mill racist), they're just bigots, not part of any larger "Taliban."

That, at least, is the difference in my book.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

I think that you would call me the Christian Taliban for simply believing that homosexuality is wrong or that homosexuals should not be able to adopt. I base that on the fact that you have said those beliefs "fan the flames of hatred". Am I correct in assuming that you would call me the "Christian Taliban"?

no. you're doing two dangerous things:

1. the whole, "i think that you think"
2. assuming. we know what happens when we assume -- we make an ASS out of U and ME.

Melon said it well -- think whatever you want, but it's when you try and legislate your beliefs/prejudices, and use a religious document as justification, that it becomes Taliban-esque, though i still prefer the term "Christianist" as it's really prejudice in the guise of religion and offensive to many Christians.

the difference is this: i am willing to let Jerry Fallwell live in my country. but he is not willing to let me live in his.

 

[nbcrusader]

Melon said it well -- think whatever you want, but it's when you try and legislate your beliefs/prejudices, and use a religious document as justification, that it becomes Taliban-esque, though i still prefer the term "Christianist" as it's really prejudice in the guise of religion and offensive to many Christians.

So, it really boils down to the perceived religious connection to legislation?

And, that some religious beliefs are unacceptable because they are deemed prejudicial?

 

[nbcrusader]

If you believe that your prejudices should be legislated, then yes, you'd be part of the "Christian Taliban." It would be no different than the KKK or the Nazis who are bigoted and actively push to make their bigotry law.

If believe your prejudices should be legislated (and all legislation contains some form of prejudice), to what group should be attribute that action?