Truth and Hate
When I was going through customs in Brussels the other day, a guy in the other line had on this t-shirt:
The small print says:
It seems to me that truth and hate are really two things that don't have anything to do with one another, and it makes me wonder what kind of person takes pride in conflating the two. It appears that the message is supposed to be that people who oppose hatefulness are anti-Christian in some extreme way, that they must hate Christianity. Maybe I'm naive, but I've got nothing against Christianity or Christian people -- I was raised in a Protestant family. I'm against hate, I'm for truth -- what's that make me?
Just think about that message for a minute: Truth is hate for those who hate the truth.
I looked at the web site that sells this shirt. They had another one:
I'm just shaking my head here.
The small print says:
"Have I now become your enemy by telling the truth?" Galatians 4:16
It seems to me that truth and hate are really two things that don't have anything to do with one another, and it makes me wonder what kind of person takes pride in conflating the two. It appears that the message is supposed to be that people who oppose hatefulness are anti-Christian in some extreme way, that they must hate Christianity. Maybe I'm naive, but I've got nothing against Christianity or Christian people -- I was raised in a Protestant family. I'm against hate, I'm for truth -- what's that make me?
Just think about that message for a minute: Truth is hate for those who hate the truth.
I looked at the web site that sells this shirt. They had another one:
Homosexuality is sin!
Islam is a lie!
Abortion is murder!
Some issues are just black and white!
I'm just shaking my head here.
posted by JimK at 2:01 PM
51 Comments:
One of my students, who proudly told me he came out as bi while I was on disability, was telling me about this family that hates gays and calls them fags. He wondered if I'd heard of them.
I told him that there are some people in the world who hold old-fashioned notions, and cling to hate even when it makes no sense, but he doesn't have to pay attention to them.
rrjr
Jim writes,
Maybe I'm naive, but I've got nothing against Christianity
Please...I know you are selling that line, but having read enough of this blog over time I fail to see how you can say that in all sincerity.
Still, such t-shirts as this guy had on are part and parcel of the reductionistic thinking that goes on in far too many parts of evangelical Christianity. A big part of the reason I could not bring myself to affiliate with the evangelical camp. "Abortion is murder"...good grief, does this guy understand that murder is a legal finding of fact? Oh, never mind...
Also, there is the element of this guy likely wanting to engage others in the message of his t-shirt...sorry, I would not even bite since I would not want to engage my intellect in such a futile endeavor.
Time to get some shut eye...
Sophomore Oleg Manzyuk and many of his friends stayed home from San Juan High School on April 18, the Day of Silence. On that day, homosexual students and their supporters wore tape over their mouths in protest.
Two years ago, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) established the Day of Truth — April 19 this year — to express a Christian perspective. Nearly 7,000 students participated in the third-annual Day of Truth.
But Oleg wasn’t in class that day either; he and about a dozen others were suspended by the Citrus Heights, Calif., school for wearing T-shirts with Scripture verses addressing homosexuality. In four California districts, at least 150 students were suspended.
“It was my idea for the shirt,” Oleg said. “Some of the gay students wore shirts (with rainbows and mentions of gay sex), and they were not suspended. That’s just ridiculous. They’re showing their opinion; so can we.”
The girl who wore the gay-sex shirt was suspended three days later.
Trent Allen, director of information for the San Juan Unified School District, said any shirt that creates an “atmosphere of intimidation” is not OK. “Students on both sides of the issue who are wearing shirts that do not continue the conversation in an educational manner” are asked to remove the shirts or turn them inside out.
The suspensions on the Day of Truth were expunged, but there were more suspensions in the weeks that followed. Protests outside some schools continued this week.
“We fully support both sides to have a discussion, as long as it doesn’t disrupt the educational process,” Allen said.
The students opposed to the gay agenda contacted Kevin Snider, chief counsel at the Pacific Justice Institute.
“Our position is that any of the shirts that are out there are lawful to wear,” he said. “It doesn’t mean they are necessarily seemly, or for ministry purposes. They are engaging in expressive conduct that is legal.
“It would be completely inappropriate for the government to ban speech that speaks to moral issues.”
Snider has advised the students to stop wearing the shirts. Instead, the district, parents and lawyers have been meeting to find middle ground.
“Parties can either negotiate a middle ground," he said, "or it would be appropriate to go into the courts. We need to go forward in a logical manner. We need to aggressively either pursue negotiations or go to court.”
David French, senior counsel for ADF, said there are two considerations in the T-shirt cases: legal equality and substantial disruption.
“If the school is going to allow one side unfettered free speech on the issue of homosexuality,” he said, it has to let the other side speak, too. A high school cannot say speech is creating a “substantial disruption” just because one person is offended, he said.
“Just getting your feelings hurt is not disruptive to the educational process.”
“While we would encourage students to always use compassionate and respectful message on their T-shirts, the sad thing is, these kids shouldn’t be having to deal with homosexual politics in their public schools at all,” she said. “If schools are going to insist on allowing adult agendas to be promoted in their hallways and classes, then the least they can do is give equal access and equal respect to religious students’ point of view.”
The next Day of Silence is just about 340 days away.
“This would all be settled without a Day of Silence,” Oleg said. “It’s a promotion of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle. I don’t want that showcased at school.”
Jim's shaking his head about:
"Homosexuality is sin!"
A position agreed to by the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever walked the face of the Earth, including the majority of the majority those presently around in the 21st century. Hardly a shocking statement.
"Islam is a lie!"
I thought this was the position of Jim K
"Abortion is murder!"
The life of the weak is destroyed to facilitate the pleasure and convenience of the strong. It's some kind of unjust killing of innocent people. What's your word for that?
Some issues are just black and white!
Anon, thanks for clarifying your position on this -- we never would have been able to predict that you would react this way. You remind us why TeachTheFacts needs to stay active in Montgomery County.
By the way, only this Focus on the Family article that you posted here mentions anyone wearing a "gay sex" t-shirt to the school. You don't think they'd make that up, do you?
JimK
"Anon, thanks for clarifying your position on this -- we never would have been able to predict that you would react this way."
What was clarified? The point is Jim K overacts.
Anonymous at May 12, 2007 10:04 AM
Anonymous, T-shirts that like those worn by the gay haters aren't any more acceptable in school than T-shirts that say "Its a sin to be a N*gger" or "Jews are going to hell" or "Christians are an abomination". T-shirts that attack others are a disruption and most certainly do not deserve equal time. Equality means that if people wear "Gay is Okay" t-shirts that other students are allowed to wear "Christian is Okay" T-shirts. Messages that afirm people are acceptable, messages that demonize people are not.
Anonymous said "Homosexuality is sin!"
A position agreed to by the overwhelming majority of humans who have ever walked the face of the Earth, including the majority of the majority those presently around in the 21st century. Hardly a shocking statement.".
Poppycock. You're in no position to have the slightest clue what the majority of humans throughout time have believed. Written history only reflects a minute fraction of the history of humanity, for all you know for the vast majority of history most humans accepted gays.
At one time the vast majority of people believed the earth was flat. Obviously just because most people believe something doesn't make it right. The developments of the 20th century are clearly a profound change in the nature of society and historically speaking have only existed for the blink of an eye. Gays are increasingly accepted in the most modern of societies. We are at the dawn of a new age and its clear the idea that being gay is a sin will be relegated to the dustbin of history just like the idea that the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth. You and yours are relics of the dark ages.
Orin said "Please...I know you are selling that line, but having read enough of this blog over time I fail to see how you can say that in all sincerity.".
LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Orin, you've claimed on more than one occasion to want the best for gays and its obvious from your anti-gay stances that that is anything but sincere. Take your holier than thou BS somewhere else.
"Poppycock. You're in no position to have the slightest clue what the majority of humans throughout time have believed. Written history only reflects a minute fraction of the history of humanity, for all you know for the vast majority of history most humans accepted gays."
Just curious. Is there anyone else who agrees with Randi on this one?
"Obviously just because most people believe something doesn't make it right."
Oh, I agree, Randi. The point is that Jim was acting if he were somehow surprised by the three statements he referred to when the first and the third are agreed to by most people. Surely, he hears these statements regularly and shouldn't have been too shocked to have read them on some website.
He didn't answer, though, about the second. Did you believe that second statement, Jim?
People used to believe the world was flat. It's easy to see why they did.
Scientific knowledge increased and now they realize it isn't.
Most people who lived on the planet in the past believed homosexuality wass a sin.
Scientific knowledge increased and now they still do.
See the fundamental difference here?
"LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Orin, you've claimed on more than one occasion to want the best for gays and its obvious from your anti-gay stances that that is anything but sincere. Take your holier than thou BS somewhere else."
Jim said he has "nothing against Christianity. Rather laughable to anyone who has read his ramblings here.
How about you? You have anything against Christianity?
Randi's rant,
"LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Orin, you've claimed on more than one occasion to want the best for gays and its obvious from your anti-gay stances that that is anything but sincere. Take your holier than thou BS somewhere else."
And then Anonymous observes,
Jim said he has "nothing against Christianity. Rather laughable to anyone who has read his ramblings here.
How about you? You have anything against Christianity?
Dear Anonymous,
I wish Randi (or even Jim, for that matter) would address the sum and substance of what I originally wrote, but alas it appears that Randi merely wants to vent, while Jim appears to be passing on responding to my comment. That's ok...I am satisfied that any dispassionate reader will be able to observe the animus against Christianity. The only reason I made the observation was so that it is noted by one and all that while Jim might fancy himself as oh so very "tolerant", the reality is...well...the exact opposite.
Randi writes,
Messages that afirm people are acceptable, messages that demonize people are not.
If I were a school administrator I would not allow any messages...period, gay...or Christian. The reason? It is an unnecessary distraction to the educational process, though my understanding is that this may not pass judicial review (litigated by...yes, you guessed it, the ACLU - an organization more concerned with a students "rights" than a process intended to educate that same student).
I am satisfied that any dispassionate reader will be able to observe the animus against Christianity.
As a long term reader here, I do not discern any animus against Christianity, but against those who would attempt to bring *any* single religion into our schools.
It just so happens, the people who attempted to RECALLMONTGOMERYSCHOOLBOARD and followed up by filing lawsuits in federal court and appeals to the Maryland State Board of Education in repeated attempts to get their religious views into MCPS, are NOT members of the ACLU, but mostly members of various Christian denominations. The groups that brought a lawsuit against MCPS include a wing of the anti-LGBT, pro-Christian Dobson empire, PFOX, and a few disgruntled former CAC members lead by an attorney who said "There’s a what I would call covert religious discrimination in this particular curriculum."
"If I were a school administrator I would not allow any messages...period, gay...or Christian."
Whatever school administrators want, students are allowed to make messages, as long as it does disrupt the school (according the the Supreme Court, in Tinker). The question is, do messages that insult certain groups "disrupt" the school. Randi argues that they do, the Alliance Defense Fund (a kind of a christian ACLU) argues that messages that may insult people aren't necessarily disruptive, and must be allowed.
Apparently most of the objection to the Day of Silence was in the Sacramento area. Some districts allowed the shirts saying "Homosexuality is Sin" with duct tape over the "Homosexuality." The GSA Network came up with the slogan "Don't 'duct' responsibility." I think school districts will be more prepared for these controversies next year.
The "notourkids.org" idea of keeping students home on the day of silence seems unwise. DOS is not a school-wide inservice or curriculum, but an action by some students that doesn't seem to interfere with other students. In is, by design, very innocuous. Staying home on the DOS is just skipping school.
It's unfortunate that when LGBT youth speak up for one another (or don't), that others respond with insults in the guise of religion.
rrjr
Very good, Robert. Gays are allowed to conduct protests in schools, by your reasoning, but any disagreement with the protest is considered disruptive.
That's one way to win an argument. Have the government rule that no one can disagree.
I guess you think free speech is over-rated, huh?
Anonymous said "Most people who lived on the planet in the past believed homosexuality wass a sin.
Scientific knowledge increased and now they still do.
See the fundamental difference here?".
Once again, you don't know what most people believed in the past. Written history is only a tiny fraction of all human history and you don't have polls showing what most people believed from the vast majority of written history.
What we do know is that, yes as you say scientific knowledge has increased, and fewer and fewer people today believe that being gay is morally wrong. The trend is clear, knowledge is increasing and the philosophy of morality is improving and people like you that claim its wrong to be gay are fading into the past.
Anonymous asked "How about you? You have anything against Christianity?".
Yes, absolutely. I hardly now where to begin. Let's start with the evil oppression of gays who aren't hurting anyone. Most Christians selfishly and immorally try to dominate and control gay lives rather than simply being content to live their own lives as they see fit. Most Christians don't have a live and let live attitude, they want the freedom to live as they choose, but they don't want to grant others the same rights they have.
Also Christians abuse children (and adults) by teaching them that they will be eternally tortured for crossing ambiguous, contradictory, and unreasonable boundaries. Christians don't believe in the equality of all, they believe in a counterproductive philosophy of us versus them, Christians versus non-Christians.
The only philosophy that can unite the world and end conflict is a non-religious one that puts equality and fairness first and works to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion. Christians devalue life by pretending its secondary to an imaginary world after death. This allows them to immorally justify mistreatment to individuals under the false assumption that justice will be achieved after death. And even their concept of "justice" after death is incredibly perverted. Obviously it is totally unjust to eternally torture gays for having a loving committed relationship, yet Christians teach that this is what should happen. Yes, to me Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are despicable, evil, destructive philosophies.
"Gays are allowed to conduct protests in schools, by your reasoning, but any disagreement with the protest is considered disruptive."
You've missed the not-so-subtle nuance, dearest anonymous.
Let's play a little analogy. By my logic, it's OK to say "Baptists are going to heaven," but not OK to say "Catholics are going to hell." Do you see the difference.
Another analogy: it's OK to say "I'm a smart, successul math student," but not OK to say "Billy is a dumbass."
Do you fail to see the difference? It really, really isn't that hard to get, unless in your heart of hearts you just don't like queer people. Could that be the real issue
rrjr
Orin said "Randi's rant...Randi merely wants to vent...The only reason I made the observation was so that it is noted by one and all that while Jim might fancy himself as oh so very "tolerant", the reality is...well...the exact opposite.".
You're pretty funny Orin. I merely pointed out that what you claim to be true about Jim IS true about you. Obviously if you think I'm guilty of merely ranting and venting the same is true of you. Your subjective morality once again rears its ugly head. When you and I make the same observations somehow I'm supposedly bad while you aren't. Don't get me wrong, I get a laugh out of seeing your hypocrisy...and your willful blindness to it. The fact is that when it comes to gays we've all noted that while you claim to be "oh so very "tolerant", the reality is...well...the exact opposite".
Anonymous said "Gays are allowed to conduct protests in schools, by your reasoning, but any disagreement with the protest is considered disruptive.".
Anonymous, if Jews and Blacks and their supporters were promoting their right to equal treatment in school would you be supporting the KKK and neo-nazis wanting to promote the idea that they are evil and undeserving of equal treatment? I doubt it, but that's what you're arguing about gays.
Christians are protected by law against discrimination. Gays deserve the same rights Christians have.
Robert writes,
It's unfortunate that when LGBT youth speak up for one another (or don't), that others respond with insults in the guise of religion.
I could not agree more.
Come to think of it...perhaps banning both sides is not the answer. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not less "speech" but more?
Maybe if it were made clear that if students were going to express pro or anti gay POV's on this particular day they would encouraged to talk to each other. Could this help break down stereotypes?
Randi writes,
Your subjective morality once again rears its ugly head.
Ok, if there is a subjective morality...you know, sort of a "I like chocolate ice cream, and you like vanilla"...then is it possible that there is an objective morality, or are all moral preferences matters of personal opinion?
I'll leave you with that for now...off to do the school pick-up routine.
Orin, the foundation of objective reality is "Do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same.".
By definition your actions are immoral because you take the freedom to marry the one person you love most but you seek to deny that same freedom to gays.
Randi writes,
Orin, the foundation of objective reality is "Do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same.".
Randi, did you read what I wrote? Ok, I'll post it once again...
I wrote,
Ok, if there is a subjective morality...you know, sort of a "I like chocolate ice cream, and you like vanilla"...then is it possible that there is an objective morality, or are all moral preferences matters of personal opinion?
Notice something here? I am talking about the possibility of an objective morality, i.e. a morality that stands independent of public opinion. You opened this possibility when you wrote (in the 3:09 PM entry),
Your subjective morality once again rears its ugly head.
(Wow, you really handed me one there...and what can I say? I saw an opportunity and I took it.)
By definition your actions are immoral because you take the freedom to marry the one person you love most but you seek to deny that same freedom to gays.
Doubtful...I might be unethical in desiring for myself what I deny others, but you will have to explain (rather than merely assert) how this same action is "immoral".
Ok, recap here: the question on the table is this: if there is a subjective morality, what is an objective morality? (If one even exists...certainly not as much a given anymore.)
Randi writes,
The only philosophy that can unite the world and end conflict is a non-religious one that puts equality and fairness first and works to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion.
I think the word you are looking for is SECULAR...correct? Well, in any case, I don't think it will come as any surprise, but I am skeptical with regards to your fondest hopes and aspirations.
Two of the deadliest philosophical/political systems to have come from the European continent in the last century have been secular, yes secular (and please, none of the nonsense about Hitler being any kind of "christian" - he made war on Christianity just as he made war on the Jews, just ask Dietrich Bonhoffer). Between Communism (whether the original "flavor" being Soviet, or the Maoist variation, or...well, you get the idea) and Facism, these two secular ideologies have been responsible for the murder of over 100 million human beings. Now, I know that some, perhaps folks like Peter Singer, would celebrate such a reduction in the "surplus population" (cf. Dickens), I don't.
To have and hold faith in secularism after the last century, truly the Slaughterbench of History, is incomprehensible. That is NOT to say that the opposite extreme is the answer...but to assert a faith in a system that has such so much blood on its hands baffles me.
Do you think Hitler was striving "to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion" Orin? Did he treat Aryans and Jews or straights and gays "in an equal fashion?" And how about the Soviets? Did Stalin treat all Soviets "in an equal fashion"? How about Castro? Does he treat all Cuban children like Elian Gonzalez?
to assert a faith in a system that has such so much blood on its hands baffles me.
I couldn't have said that any better myself. Religion, just about all religions, have so much blood on their hands and yet people continue to assert faith in them. You don't think their hands are blood-free do you? Here are a few examples of the blood religions have spilled:
Crusades 1-9, 1095 - 1271
Smaller Crusades, continue through the 16th Century
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
French Wars of Religion 1-8, 1562 - 1598
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
Thirty Years War, 1618-1648
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years_War
Many deaths throughout Europe and the Middle East have been brought by Christians trying to impose their religion on others, often times on other Christians from different denominations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians
Jihad often pits one branch of Islam against another, like the fighting between Sunni and Shi'a in Iraq today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_Muhammad
Jihad also pits Islam against those who are considered to be infidels or non-believers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#.22Jihad.22_in_Afghanistan
Orin says:
"Maybe if it were made clear that if students were going to express pro or anti gay POV's on this particular day they would encouraged to talk to each other. Could this help break down stereotypes?"
I would agree 100%. I think that's a big point behind the Day of Silence. I think it is in part the idea behind the Day of Truth. It's not the idea behind the notourkids.org campaign.
I really appreciate when Theresa signs onto this blog and shares what she thinks (and reads what others write), even though we often disagree strenuously and offend one another. One of my greatest regrets is that I've never been able to engage Regina Griggs of PFOX in any sort of conversation. Patricia Phillips (Virginia head of Concerned Women) and Peter LaBarbera (of National CWA) were always willing to speak.
rrjr
Capitalism and democracy are also secular "philosophical/political systems." You gotta gripe against them too?
"Capitalism and democracy are also secular "philosophical/political systems." You gotta gripe against them too?"
Hey, everyone.
Go back up and look at the discussion this is a response to.
This comment is vintage TTF illogic.
Personally, I think nations and people end up doing grossly immoral things (e.g. genocide, porgroms, crusades, jihads, slavery, sexism, colonialism) when they think their group is superior (morally, intellectually, physically) than the other groups. Gangs kill over which gang is the better one. Even disagreements over sports teams can become violent. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, ethnic, national, political, or whatever divide, when you think people think their group is better, they feel justified in demonizing, demeaning and destroying other groups. For example, Theresa calls LGBT activists "murderers." Until recently, in many states, it was illegal to be gay. Even now, in our government's largest department, lgbt soldiers and sailors can't be honorably discharged and receive benefits.
Anonymous says, in the same vein he repeats over and over:
"This comment is vintage TTF illogic."
Case in point.
Robert
Orin said "I might be unethical in desiring for myself what I deny others, but you will have to explain (rather than merely assert) how this same action is "immoral".".
Uhh, Orin, take a look in your dictionary, unethical is a synonym for immoral. You are unethical and immoral because you try to deny others the same right you have to marry the one person you love most.
Orin said "if there is a subjective morality, what is an objective morality?".
You're misunderstanding what I mean here by subjective morality. What I mean by your subjective morality is that your morality isn't based on whether a given action is universally good or bad, it is based on the person (or subject) performing the action. In other words when you comment that a person is insincere you consider that to be okay, when I do the same thing, you disparage me - the basis of what you consider moral is not the action, but who's doing it, you assign right and wrong to people, not action. "Do whatever you want as long as you don't interfere in someone else's right to do the same" is objective morality because it assigns the same standard to all.
Orin said "Two of the deadliest philosophical/political systems to have come from the European continent in the last century have been secular, yes secular (and please, none of the nonsense about Hitler being any kind of "christian" - he made war on Christianity just as he made war on the Jews."
See, now you're blatantly lying again. Hitler affirmed his Christianity repeatedly in one speech and proclamation after another:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
For Christ's sake the Nazis all had "Gott Mitt Uns" (god with us) on their belt buckles, don't give me this BS that the Nazi's and Hitler weren't Christians. At no point did Hitler renounce his Catholicism and the church never excommunicated him or any Nazi. And despite the urging of Bormann he never moved against the Catholic church.
The idea that secularism is responsible for the slaughter of anyone is absurd. No one ever killed in the name of secularism, but they certainly did kill in the name of religion. Stalin's secularism was no more the motivation for his acts than his having a moustache was.
As O'really said these people weren't trying to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion, and most definitely neither is your religion.
"Anonymous says, in the same vein he repeats over and over:
"This comment is vintage TTF illogic."
Case in point."
Did you agree with that comment, Robert?
Anonymous said:
"This comment is vintage TTF illogic."
Robert responded:
"Case in point."
Anonymous asked:
Did you agree with that comment, Robert?
Robert answers:
Let me be clear: It matters not one bit whether I agree or disagree with the comment. My objection at this moment is not to your accuracy, but to your manners. You make a habit (over and over and over) of putting people down. It's a mild form of the type of behavior justified by religious, political, national, sports team, etc. differences (i.e. grotesque moral failure).
Please see my description of the "Bama of the Week" fliers under Jim's post about the CRC survey. I just really wish you would stop putting people down all the time. It doesn't make you appear smarter, more clever, more correct or superior in any way. It just cheapens the discussion. Please stop, or go away, or play in traffic, or whatever.
Robert
p.s. Are you Matt Barber?
Randi writes,
At no point did Hitler renounce his Catholicism and the church never excommunicated him or any Nazi.
Ok, I have time just to answer this and then I have to get back to painting (sorry, it is the Mrs. request).
The Church did not have to excommunicate Hitler as he did it himself by the mortal sins he committed. Here is one explanation, found here,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]".
Pope Benedict made a statement that references this understanding while in Brazil, esp. mindful of changes in abortion laws in Mexico.
Oh, and finally,
The idea that secularism is responsible for the slaughter of anyone is absurd. No one ever killed in the name of secularism, but they certainly did kill in the name of religion. Stalin's secularism was no more the motivation for his acts than his having a moustache was.
You are correct...they did not kill in the name of secularism per se, but in the name of Marxism, a secular ideology. Thank you for prodding me to be more specific...
Robert
You've got a point sometimes about the civility factor but you're way off base today. The comment that was being referred to was a cheap manipulation. It distorted instead of argued with a relevant point made by Orin. It's the kind of thing TTF regularly resorts to.
I don't think that's an unfair characterization, especially the way you guys pigeon-hole anyone who disagrees with you.
Orin said "The Church did not have to excommunicate Hitler as he did it himself by the mortal sins he committed.".
LOL, that's one of the most desperate things I've heard out of you. What a pathetic excuse for the Church's clear support of Hitler all along. And of course your baseless assertion is completely undone by the fact that Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933.
The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world. You can see the picture of this signing ceremony here:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
And also note the pictures of German Bishops and priests giving the Nazi salute, Hitler's Brown army attending mass, Hitler leaving church, a Cardinal in a Nazi parade, the celebration for Bishop Konrad Graf von Preysing (Note the Catholic Chi-Rho Cross to the right of the Nazi flag), and all the other photos showing nazism intertwined with Christianity.
Further showing how inseperable Nazism was with Christianity note these Nazi/Christian artifacts:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
See the Nazi Swastika combined with the Christian cross over and over. Look inside the Martin Luther Memorial church - carvings of Jesus with Nazi soldiers, a carving of Hitler holding a storm trooper's hat at the babtismal. Look at the Nazi chaplain's hats displaying christian cross.
Obviously the fact that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians is undeniable. No matter how much of a manic revisionist you are you can't cover up all the clear evidence of that.
Orin said "You are correct...[the communists] did not kill in the name of secularism per se, but in the name of Marxism, a secular ideology. Thank you for prodding me to be more specific...".
They never claimed to be killing in the name of Marxism either for that matter. That was coincidental to their motivations just like having a moustache was. According to your logic Stalin had a moustache so people with mustaches are evil. And so what if Marxism was secular? So is democracy and capitalism, are you claiming those are inherently evil as well?
The fact remains that anyone who's committed to maximizing the benefits and minimizing the problems for all in an equal fashion is going to be a moral person. If Stalin and Mao had been committed to this philosophy there wouldn't have been any problems with them. History has shown that religion is a divider, not a uniter. There is no rational argument to be made against puttng fairness and equality first.
"There is no rational argument to be made against puttng fairness and equality first."
If you mean equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality, you're wrong.
Because of your past maniacal ramblings, I was forced to learn a little more about Hitler than I had previously known. Hitler was pushing something called "positive Christianity". It basically excluded all of the doctrines of Christianity as negative and tried to replace it a broad anti-semitism by throwing around a bunch religious sounding phrases. It was a crass attempt to use certain symbols and rhetoric to seduce the populace.
If your going to equate a religion with an attempt to replace it, you're going to find few who agree with you. Your logic is both faulty and obnoxious.
"They never claimed to be killing in the name of Marxism either for that matter."
Not in public anyway. They claimed to not be killing anyone.
"And so what if Marxism was secular? So is democracy and capitalism, are you claiming those are inherently evil as well?"
I don't think Orin said Marxism is evil because its secular. He said it was evil because it devalued human life. That's why they murdered the innocent.
"Islamic expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies said that Jews living under Islam were "dhimmis" or second-class citizens. As long as they maintained that status, they were acceptable but not treated as equals.
In ninth-century Baghdad, he said, Jews were forced to wear a yellow badge and Christians an orange badge. The Nazis, who made Jews were a yellow Star of David to identify themselves, actually borrowed the practice from the Abbasids, a Sunni caliphate, he added."
Anonymous said "If you mean equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality, you're wrong.".
You foolish man. I've loved women and now a man, the two loves are most definitely equal. You should keep quiet about that of which you know nothing.
Anonymous said "I don't think Orin said Marxism is evil because its secular. He said it was evil because it devalued human life. ".
No, go back and read what he said, you've got it exactly backwards. He never said anything about marxism being evil because it devalued life, he said secular philosophies were evil and Stalin and Mao were examples of that. And your assertion that marxism devalued life is baseless. Marxism placed a high value on the lowly worker, a much higher value than the industrial societies of the time did. Stalin and Mao killed to assert control over people, not because of any philosophy.
Once again, Orin is left with the question, if secularism is evil, what about Democracy and Capitalism?
Anonymous said "Because of your past maniacal ramblings, I was forced to learn a little more about Hitler than I had previously known. Hitler was pushing something called "positive Christianity". It basically excluded all of the doctrines of Christianity as negative and tried to replace it a broad anti-semitism by throwing around a bunch religious sounding phrases. It was a crass attempt to use certain symbols and rhetoric to seduce the populace.".
The links I posted show Hitler was strongly supported by the Catholic and Protestant churchs. The idea that they supported somone who excluded all the doctrines of Christianity is absurd.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of flavours of Christianity and it is typical for each to declare all the others as non-Christian but to an objective observer they are all derived from the same source and one is as much Christian as the next. Hitler's anti-semitism was supported in the new testament preaching of Jesus and Paul.
While god made his covenant with Israel and delivered his son in the guise of a Jew, the earliest Christians were increasingly gentile, and as the doctrine spread the newly babtised began to see the Jew's denial of the divinity of Jesus as consumate evil. This sectarian ethos is already well established by the time of Paul:
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
The explicit demonization of the Jews appears in the gospel of John:
John 8:42-45
Jesus said unto them [the Jews], If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Randi writes (or does he rant?...oh, does it really matter?),
No, go back and read what he said, you've got it exactly backwards. He never said anything about marxism being evil because it devalued life, he said secular philosophies were evil and Stalin and Mao were examples of that. And your assertion that marxism devalued life is baseless. Marxism placed a high value on the lowly worker, a much higher value than the industrial societies of the time did. Stalin and Mao killed to assert control over people, not because of any philosophy.
Randi, when you write in this manner you discredit the cause you so clearly desire to advance...not to mention exposing your lack of knowledge with regards to 20th century Totalitarianism. And then, in addition, you misrepresent what I wrote, and lest you do so again, here is what I wrote,
Two of the deadliest philosophical/political systems to have come from the European continent in the last century have been secular, yes secular (and please, none of the nonsense about Hitler being any kind of "christian" - he made war on Christianity just as he made war on the Jews, just ask Dietrich Bonhoffer). Between Communism (whether the original "flavor" being Soviet, or the Maoist variation, or...well, you get the idea) and Facism, these two secular ideologies have been responsible for the murder of over 100 million human beings. Now, I know that some, perhaps folks like Peter Singer, would celebrate such a reduction in the "surplus population" (cf. Dickens), I don't.
I said two of the deadliest SECULAR ideologies were spawned on the European Continent (heck, even Pol Pot picked up the ideas that motivated him while he was a student in France). I am ready and willing to have the humanitarian record of religion held up to scrutiny, though I think to be fair the same treatment ought to be given to the public record of secularism. Now if 100 million members of the human race meeting with violent death due to Communism and Fascism is not evil then I don't know what will.
Once again, Orin is left with the question, if secularism is evil, what about Democracy and Capitalism?
Well, if you were to familiarize yourself a little with the writings of the late Pope John Paul II you would know that he was skeptical about Capitalism, but thought that Democracy had the best chance of respecting the dignity of all human persons.
Orin, I'm a she, not a he.
And Orin...calm down. You're missing the point. The only philosophy that can unite the world and end conflict is a non-religious one that puts equality and fairness first and works to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion.
Obviously Stalin and Pol Pot (or whoever you were talking about -the details are insignificant) didn't adheare to this philosophy. And Hitler was obviously a Christian - go back and look at the links I posted. And the former pope was hardly what you'd call a wise man. If he was he'd adhere to and promote the simple philosophy of fairness and stop persecuting gays.
"The only philosophy that can unite the world and end conflict is a non-religious one that puts equality and fairness first and works to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion."
Can you give us an example of one of these?
Christianity has been trying to unite the world for 2000 years.
Does the world seem united to you?
"Christianity has been trying to unite the world for 2000 years."
What are you talking about?
Oh, yeah, Orin, I don't know how this slipped by me this morning, I must have had a brain fart.
If you're opposed to totalitarianism its pretty ironic that you subscribe to an abrahamic religon. There's nothing more totalitarian than a omnipotent sky dictator ruling all with an iron fist.
And don't give us this hypocrascy about being concerned about 100 million being killed. Thats nothing compared to the atrocities committed by your god according to the bible. Your god not only has killed millions, but is eternally torturing billions, the majority of the population that ever lived. At least the pain inflicted by Stalin and Pol Pot was finite, there's no excuse for the unmitigated evil you worship in the guise of religion.
Anonymous asked "Can you give us an example of one of these?".
I just did: Put equality and fairness first and work to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems for all in an equal fashion.
Randi writes,
Oh, yeah, Orin, I don't know how this slipped by me this morning, I must have had a brain fart.
Did you have your coffee before you started typing? That always helps me...
If you're opposed to totalitarianism its pretty ironic that you subscribe to an abrahamic religion. There's nothing more totalitarian than a omnipotent sky dictator ruling all with an iron fist.
I can't decide whether you are merely misinformed or a victim of blind rage when it comes to matters of revealed religion...at the moment I am more partial to the blind rage theory. Why don't you start out here, reading this Wiki entry (not as good as sum entries but it will have to do for now),
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Totalitarianism
And don't give us this hypocrascy about being concerned about 100 million being killed.
How about this: I will try not to judge your motives and you can try to return the favor? I have read a history of the Holocaust from start to finish and while it made me a better human being, the experience seared itself into me.
Thats nothing compared to the atrocities committed by your god according to the bible. Your god not only has killed millions, but is eternally torturing billions, the majority of the population that ever lived. At least the pain inflicted by Stalin and Pol Pot was finite, there's no excuse for the unmitigated evil you worship in the guise of religion.
That assumes that this God actually does exist...talk to any atheist about hell and damnation and if they are secure in their belief they will think you are crazy and walk away.
I do have more thoughts on this subject (surprised?) but I have my petulent 17 year old wanting to use the high speed connection and I need to get some sleep.
In response to Randi's comment "If you're opposed to totalitarianism its pretty ironic that you subscribe to an abrahamic religon. There's nothing more totalitarian than a omnipotent sky dictator [aka "God"] ruling all with an iron fist," Orin decided she was "a victim of blind rage" and provided a link to Wikipedia's section on totalitarianism.
Wikipedia describes totalitarianism as "regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior."
"Religions in which God regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior" can be described as totalitarian.
Orin then suggested "I will try not to judge your motives and you can try to return the favor?" Uh Orin, if you were sincere in this statement, you could have edited out that "blind rage" motive you assigned to Randi.
Orin said "That assumes that this God actually does exist...talk to any atheist about hell and damnation and if they are secure in their belief they will think you are crazy and walk away."
The point is not what I believe Orin, but what you claim to believe. You claim to believe in the god of the bible and the bible says that god has killed millions and is eternally torturing billions, the majority of humanity that has ever lived. Its pretty hypocritical of you you to condemn Stalin and Pol Pot and then to glorify a being the bible says is responsible for infinitely greater atrocities.
In a private email to me Orin apologized for referring to me as "he".
In a private email to me Orin apologized...
Thank you, Orin, and thanks Randi for telling us. I wouldn't want to think that our friend Orin would do something like that on purpose.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home