Hot Coffee Too Hot? - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-26-2005, 08:18 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:18 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 08:20 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 08:22 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:18 AM
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 12:30 AM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:18 PM
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.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 02:41 AM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:18 AM
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.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:42 AM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
That's the spirit!
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:48 AM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:49 AM   #98
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:51 AM   #99
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.


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 offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 06:53 AM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:52 AM   #101
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:54 AM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 11:02 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


You seem intent on vilifying people instead of discussing the ideas.
yes, he does.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 11:25 AM   #104
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 11:29 AM   #105
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com