Fla Pastor burns Koran for wrong reasons.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fla Pastor burns Koran for wrong reasons.

It is all over the  news, no link. But you guys may remember that bigoted Fla idiot who backed off his threat a year or so ago, but now he really has gone and done it.

Should we burn ANY book, much less a Koran. CONTEXT.

For the selfish bigoted reasons this asshole is doing it no. He thinks this is a Christian nation and they should bow to Jesus. Just as fascist a statement as those who are now murdering people over his action.

But, Ayaan Hersi Ali and Saiman Rushdie should not be put under threat of death because they rightfully criticize the current Islamic Dark ages. I do not think we help the middle east by allowing their nuts to bully us into caving into their taboos.

In that context, if ANY law were passed here, to ban burning something ANYTHING, such as a flag, or even the Koran, as a form of protest, then that is a form of fascism and should be protested. I find it funny that these nuts burn an American flag.

This sicko is making it the us vs them crap these zealots want. What we should want for the east, isn't childish "you picked on my daddy" violence. What we should want for them is what we have here under our Constitution. In that we all have the right to bitch about others but do not have the right to be violent towards others.

In the context of why this asshole is burning a Koran, I am against him. But we will not win the war against their fascism by caving into their taboos.

They need to grow the fuck up. Allah is a fucking pussy if he needs mere mortals to do his bidding for him. He is immoral if he is more worried about a fucking object than world disease, world hunger, world polution, poverty and war.

They are just as fucked in the head as this Pastor. I would burn both a bible and a koran together as a protest, not against all religious people, but against those who think bigotry and violence is what a god should want for humanity.

I am so sick of humans thinking their god(insert name here) deserves respect "just because" and then use violence to demand that respect.

FUCK ANY GOD, MUSLIM, JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, who has fans who think violence is a lagit form of protest to things they don't like to hear.

You are proving this bigot's point by behaving like schoolyard bullies. If you want to prove this dickhead Pastor wrong, then simply call him a bigoted dickhead, and leave it at that.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
He comes from the same cut

He comes from the same cut as the people he claims to abhor -- fundamentalist. The only difference is the religion, it seems.

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I agree Brian.The only thing

I agree Brian.

The only thing I would add is that I don't think it's important what the Pastor's motivations were: No matter the motivation for the burning, the violence is completely unjustified, and the Pastor should not be held responsible for the actions of others who were not even present (i.e. this is no 'shouting fire in a theatre' situation).

You've hit the nail on the head that caving in to their taboos is exactly the wrong thing to do. It only reinforces extremists to do it again and again, escalating each time. I personally believe this is how Islam spread so quickly when it was first brandished by Mohammed as a tool of war. It bullies in on its neighbours, holds a gun to their head, and says, "Don't talk back, or you're dead!" Then it forces everyone to convert or die, et voila, memetic brain virus epidemic.

The solution is to nip it in the bud while there's still an opportunity for reason to prevail. I hope a bunch of people burn Qurans on Blasphemy Day this year, and participate in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

But, unlike the nutjob pastor, we should perform the burnings with clear messages included to demonstrate the reasons for doing it, such as freedom of thought, freedom of speech and expression, de-escalation of violence, pointing out the problems with the Quran itself, and arguing that any Muslims who feel the need to act violently in protest to a burning are being controlled by a fear-based dogma which has no legitimate place on planet Earth. We simply cannot afford to risk this planet, which we all share whether we like it or not, for the sake of some irrational, emotional, delusional fantasies of a martyr's afterlife.

Another thing we should not do is allow people like this pastor and his like-minded right-wing extremists to be the ones to set the message with this act. We should reject Christianity, too, probably by burning a Bible as well, just to set the record straight that Pastor Nutjob doesn't speak for us.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
He SHOULD be held

He SHOULD be held responsible, not in any criminal sense. But assholes like him need to have their "My god is going to kick your ass" mentality challenged, which is why he is doing it, even if he is non violent himself.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
We have stunts and the jackazzes of the media eat it all up.

Re::Florida Pastor Terry Jones should be minorly punished by law and forced  to print  Qurans

 

 

  The man couldnt have stuck to  a political cartoon or something.  Florida Pastor Terry Jones should be minorly punished by law and forced  to print a run of "fifteen thousand" Qurans. Using "sacred texts" as  t.p.  or using "sacred texts" to cook smores.  I dont think reflects well on his beliefs (nor on himself).  Really! The media is so damn stupid (sometimes)  .  

 

 

 

 

 

:


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: re: We

danatemporary wrote:

 

re: We have stunts and the jackazzes of the media eat it all up. 

 

 

  The man couldnt have stuck to  a political cartoon or something.  I heard, Apparently the numbers have dropped off so much the man has now been turning to stunts.   Using "sacred texts" as  t.p.  or using "sacred texts" to cook smores.  I dont think reflects well on his beliefs. Really! The media is so damn stupid (sometimes)   If the Florida Pastor  is to profit from this, then  why not  give the Unabomber that oh so wanted book deal.   Florida Pastor Terry Jones should be minorly punished by law and forced  to print a run of "fifteen thousand" Qurans

 

 

I am glad you had no hand in writing our Constitution.

Your short term kumbia "cant we all just get along" noble idea will screw you over without even realizing it.

First of, you should not bow to threats, which is what the Muslim's acts of violence were. If they were civil, they would allow him to spew his garbage and merely use civil protest to counter his bigotry. I don't think advocating the same attitude of censorship they do is going to solve a damned thing.

What you forget is the long term affect to ALL of society suggesting blasphemy laws can do.

WHO GETS TO DECIDE who gets to say what? When you are in the minority and the lawmakers and law enforcement and judges and potential juries are in the majority and may not like what you have to say, I would not hand a loaded gun in the form of a law to allow them to silence you.

I am an atheist in a Christian majority. I DO NOT want to see a day where I can be arrested for merely saying "fuck Jesus".

THAT IS THE VERY THING THOSE MUSLIM NUTS ADVOCATE, and they didn't just stop at arrest, they murdered people.

There are far too many people in this country, that if it were not for civil law and our Constitution WOULD do the very same thing and not stop at arrest.

You forget that our country turned a blind eye to the treatment BY GOVERNMENT, of Blacks and Native Americans.

Just because we are civil now, doesn't mean socieites don't change and that laws can be ignored or become lopsided in the future.

The reason you protect this asshole in Florida, isn't because you like him. You protect him because if you don't you yourself will risk your rights in the future if you want to say something unpopular.

If some NOT ALL, but some Christians in America had their way, this site would be banned and Brian arrested.

These nutcases were NOT being physically threatened. They violently reacted to merely being offended.

I get offended by tones of vile shit, Jean comes to mind. Should I have the right to arrest him, or even get violent with him merely because he is being an asshole?

You have no clue what kind of damage you will do to your own rights by suggesting such a dangerous tactic.

The best thing we can do in a civil society is to agree that we don't have to like each other, but we do have to agree that we cannot hurt each other physically.

I am not going to hand a loaded gun in the form of censorship laws to a majority that does not like me.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I will blame him for his

I will blame him for his bigotry with my own voice. I will not silence him because Muslim muderers merely got offended.

If I don't get to have other people arrested, much less murdered, for offending me, I most certainly don't want anyone having that kind of legal power or lawless power over me.

Your intent is not my issue, it is your tactic that scares the shit out of me, and not just for me, but all of society.

You cannot legislate whom an individual must like. You cannot use force of law to tell people they can only say nice things about others. You can only react when ANYONE acts out in violence. Merely being offended is not a crime and no one should be arrested for offending someone else, much less murdered for it.

If you don't like the bigotry of this asshole, then use your own form of protest, like sending a letter to the editor, or actually set up a legal protest on a public road within view of his church. THAT is the way you win.

Morals and likes and dislikes and even emotions, cannot be legislated. Only actions can. Being offended is not a physical threat, it is merely getting your feelings hurt.

I do not want the west to have the same censorship "don't offend me" childish gang crap that caused those assholes to murder people.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What the Muslims did was a

What the Muslims did was a crime. This Pastor was merely being an asshole. It is not a crime to be an asshole.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The middle east is starting

The middle east is starting to have it's early Age Of Enlightenment. Egypt showed that you can disagree without violence. Laws that advocate "don't offend me" can even be applied to protect a government from any competition from it's citizens. THAT is what Egypt had before it's revolution. I only hope it holds and however they set up the new government, they do the right thing and protect dissent.

No individual human, no political party and especially no government, should have absolute power to silence people from saying unpopular things.

No one, not me, not you, no human deserves to have the right to be free from merely being offended, no matter their class, race, religion, political party, sexuality, not even atheists.

Taboo laws are the quickest way to fascism. Absolute power again, is what all should want to avoid and the only way to avoid absolute power is to allow even those who offend us, the ability to offend us. The slippery slope can, and has happened in human history, eventually screws everyone, and the government becomes the thought police.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
No media is bad media

No media is bad media

Brian37 wrote:

What the Muslims did was a crime. This Pastor was merely being an asshole. It is not a crime to be an asshole.

  Some other time I d be willing to debate that  issue. Anyhow,  Someone should at least minorly "fine" the guy via an action brought against him in a civil suit (no lg. sum).  With the loony laws surrounding and about "the corporations"; someone force him to pay out nothing more than an amount   equivalent to  a "fine"  IMHO,  This  is what  laws  are for.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:No media

danatemporary wrote:

No media is bad media

Brian37 wrote:

What the Muslims did was a crime. This Pastor was merely being an asshole. It is not a crime to be an asshole.

  Some other time I d be willing to debate that  issue. Anyhow,  Someone should at least minorly "fine" the guy via an action brought against him in a civil suit (no lg. sum).   IMHO,  This  is what  laws  are for.

No, if you are going to make such a bold statement, do the right thing and back it up here and now.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that your good intent can come back and bite you in the ass.

What if some Christian wants to "fine" Brian Sapient for what he says and allows here?

You have to go beyond merely saying "fuck you" otherwise we'd be a society demanding the arrest of everyone who offends us. The very thing those muderers advocate there and most middle east nations advocate under their governments, even if they don't murder you.

"fuck you" to ANYONE is perfectly legal AND SHOULD BE.

Where it stops, even in domestic crimes and what should be illegal is "Go kill this person".

There is a difference between merely being offended and advocating violence towards others.

If I sued Jean for all the vile shit he has posted here, he'd be in prison for his inability to pay that "fine"

All Jean has done here is be a prick. I wont sue him merely for offending me.

NOW, if he claimed something patently false like "I saw Brian37 murder someone" then I could sue him for slander and liable. Merely saying, "My god is going to kick your ass for being an atheist" only makes him a prick, not a criminal, and not even sueable.

I don't think you realize, like far too many on the left, realize the slippery slope that can and will lead to a big brother state where the government is thought police.

It is not about protecting bigots. It is about the core of what kind of government they, us, EVERYONE should want to live under if we all want to be free without fear of others we disagree with.

You are going to shoot yourself in the foot with your good intent.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:No media

danatemporary wrote:

No media is bad media

Brian37 wrote:

What the Muslims did was a crime. This Pastor was merely being an asshole. It is not a crime to be an asshole.

  Some other time I d be willing to debate that  issue. Anyhow,  Someone should at least minorly "fine" the guy via an action brought against him in a civil suit (no lg. sum).  With the loony laws surrounding and about "the corporations"; someone force him to pay out nothing more than an amount   equivalent to  a "fine"  IMHO,  This  is what  laws  are for.

ONCE AGAIN you fail to realize "WHO GETS TO DECIDE"? Since societies change and lawmakers change and power shifts over the long term, you do not want to put government in the position of having that kind of power over you in case the majority doesn't like what you have to say.

AGAIN this is important, not because of him, or you, or me. It is important to prevent abuse of power and absolute power. The only way you can prevent your voice from being silenced, is to protect dissent, that way if you become or are in the minority, you maintain your own rights.

What if Jerry Falwell, the same Jerry Falwell who blamed abortion supporters and gays for Katrina. What if he was our president and our congress was a majority that followed his dogma? What if that majority got the right to "fine" people they found offensive?

Don't you think Iran's Shiite majority population has blasphemy laws? And I am quite sure they don't stop at mere "fines". And they can and do have people arrested for even merely suggesting that Allah isn't real,

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Let me add this. If someone

Let me add this. If someone managed to sue him, and I was a defense lawyer in the civil court, I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO DEFEND HIM.

Not because I like him. As long as he has not advocated violence in words like "Go kill these people(insert label here)" and all he has done is say "Fuck these people", I would defend him because I am defending the Constitution, not him as an individual in this moment of time. And I am defending my own right to say things other people might not like.

I would do that for Jean, or people who say "fuck atheists".

It is well intended to say "Cant we all just get along", but it is wrong headed to use law to force people to like you or only say nice things about you.

The way you fight bigotry isn't through force of law, but through the same free speech they use to spew their garbage. That is what makes us civil. That is what makes us different from the Middle East.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:No media

danatemporary wrote:

No media is bad media

Brian37 wrote:

What the Muslims did was a crime. This Pastor was merely being an asshole. It is not a crime to be an asshole.

  Some other time I d be willing to debate that  issue. Anyhow,  Someone should at least minorly "fine" the guy via an action brought against him in a civil suit (no lg. sum).  With the loony laws surrounding and about "the corporations"; someone force him to pay out nothing more than an amount   equivalent to  a "fine"  IMHO,  This  is what  laws  are for.

 That is an incredibly OFFENSIVE thing to say! I am deeply offended to the core of my being that you would advocate PUNISHING someone for merely causing offense! This is an OUTRAGE! You made me so mad I murdered an innocent baby and ate it with BBQ SAUCE!

According to your own standards, you should confess, turn yourself in, and submit to a fine for inciting me to MURDEROUS RAGE! And don't you DARE do it again, you... you... person who expressed their opinions NON-VIOLENTLY!!!!!

(All fines are payable to The Rational Response Squad. If you pay your fine before 7pm, the user Beyond Saving will match your donation up to $100.)

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian

Hi Brian,

The only reason why he didn't do it is because he didn't have enough gun power. If he had a few trained men in combat, he would have done it.

And so would I.

Demonstration that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but is just as bad as atheism.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Brian,

The only reason why he didn't do it is because he didn't have enough gun power. If he had a few trained men in combat, he would have done it.

And so would I.

Demonstration that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but is just as bad as atheism.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Just like the bloodthirsty dickhead of a god you worship. Thanks for proving my point that you suck at salesmanship.

I'll tell you what, you want a war with them. If I had the money and power to put you and them on another fucking planet, I'd let you kill each other, so that peace loving Christins, Muslims and atheists could be free from assholes like you.

The sickest part is that I value the Constitution so I have to allow you to spew such vile bullshit.

You are just a crybaby who can't handle that someone doesn't believe in your god. Fortunately we live under our Constitution, and not what you would set up if you had the chance.

How does it feel to be property Fido.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Terry Jones is an ass

Terry Jones is an ass clown.

And I feel quite the same way about Muslims who kill people because some idiot burned a Koran.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Terry Jones

Wowzers1 wrote:

Terry Jones is an ass clown.

 

yeah, not to mention he besmirches the name of a brilliant member of monty python!

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Terry Jones

Wowzers1 wrote:

Terry Jones is an ass clown.

And I feel quite the same way about Muslims who kill people because some idiot burned a Koran.

 

I am really pissed of at the President AND the military general who rightfully condemned the Koran burning BUT without clarification, or at least that are the media clips are portraying.

One thing that pissed me off about the words the media used to describe the muderers was "protesters"

PLEASE, CNN, MSNBC ALL MEDIA, do not describe murder as "protest". These UN members had nothing to do with this asshole's behavior.

The Muslims in Egypt were protesters. They did not act out in violence MERELY because of being offended. I am pissed at media for calling these murders "protestors". They were a lynch mob and nothing but gang members.

I AGREE with the President condemning the Koran burning. But he should have gone further and said to these dicks. It is one thing to condemn something with protest, it is another to murder merely because you don't like the message.

These fucking murderers ARE NOT in the same camp as the peaceful Muslims who protested the Egyptian government.

And what I find so hypocritical is that they burned a cross AFTER committing murder and don't understand that if a Christian murdered them on United States soil for merely burning a cross, we would have them arrested, our government WOULD NOT join them in murdering dissenters.

So it is not ok to burn a Koran but it is ok to burn a cross?

HOW ABOUT both of you fuckheads putting human beings above objects?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is what pisses me off

This is what pisses me off about humans, they cant seem to get over words.

If someone burned a picture of Darwin or Dawkins would that give atheists the right to murder them, or even merely have them arrested or fined?

You have one asshole in Fla, who is merely being offensive, while wrongly being a biggot. And I would suspect if it were not for our Constitution this asshole would go beyond merely burning a Koran and make murder of Muslims living in the states legal.

Then you have a less common law society and more sectarian lawless society who reacts to his assholish behavior as if he could really kill this all powerful Allah they believe in.

We have one gang member with handcuffs on him, in the bigoted Pastor. Then you have uneducated Muslims in in a goat hearding country who froth at the mouth that you called their daddy names.

BOTH are pathetic.

Neither this Pastor or these murderers get it. Life will go on even if both of their gods later become myth to future genterations. Neither of them want to face that when their planet dies so to where their fictional gods.

I have to from a human standpoint rights issue, protect both of them in their rights to make the claims they want, even though they both are too fucking dense to see how divisive it is to humanity.

BUT, if this Pastors attitude is "My daddy will kick your ass"(not all Christians) and the Muslims(not all Muslims)who think Allah will kick our ass, I say to both of you.

KNOCK IT OFF AND LEAVE IT AT A "FUCK YOU."

There are 7 billion people on this planet, we will not always agree or even like each other. But we as a species need to get over this trailer trash, mountain dwelling, Jerry Springer, backwoods banjo playing, camel fucking tribalism.

WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Look you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box"

 Looking for a kinder , gentler Super Moderator (who could banned me) . . .

Quote:
That is an incredibly OFFENSIVE thing to say! I am deeply offended to the core of my being that you would advocate PUNISHING someone for merely causing offense!

 

    Maybe you could do a better job ? Hang on a minute. If you'd gone through my thinking you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box" .....  Apparently, I am only concerned about the expansion of  what is considered a "hate crime". "Hate crime" laws SHOULD REMAIN 'as is'!  No limit on freedom can exacerbating this very newly disturbing trend ..  

 

 

 

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Look you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box"

 Looking for a kinder , gentler Super Moderator (who could banned me) . . .

Quote:
That is an incredibly OFFENSIVE thing to say! I am deeply offended to the core of my being that you would advocate PUNISHING someone for merely causing offense!

 

    Seriously , Maybe you could do a better job ? Hang on a minute. If you'd gone through my thinking you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box" .....  Apparently, I am only concerned about the expansion of  what is considered a "hate crime". "Hate crime" laws SHOULD REMAIN 'as is'!  No limit on freedom can inevitably only exacerbate this very newly disturbing trend .. Proud to own the position  

 

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 Looking for a kinder , gentler Super Moderator (who could banned me) . . .

Quote:
That is an incredibly OFFENSIVE thing to say! I am deeply offended to the core of my being that you would advocate PUNISHING someone for merely causing offense!

 

    Maybe you could do a better job ? Hang on a minute. If you'd gone through my thinking you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box" .....  Apparently, I am only concerned about the expansion of  what is considered a "hate crime". "Hate crime" laws SHOULD REMAIN 'as is'!  No limit on freedom can inevitably exacerbating this very newly disturbing trend .. Proud to own the position  

 

 

 

 

 

You still don't get it and I suspect you never will.

Do you really want a future where Christians make "hate crime laws". Do you want them to declare this site a "hate site" and give them the power to silence this website.

DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, that the thugs who murdered the UN members thought burning the Koran was a "hate crime" which justified their muderous actions, AND NOT EVEN against the guy who did it?

None of us should have the right to play thought police or morality police when it comes to expressing ANY emotion.

Your rightful condemnation of the Pastor should not include throwing out the Constitution.

Stop trying to downplay what amounts to censorship. His bigotry does not justify murder. You are allowing those Muslim thugs to get what they want wich is the very same silence you want to inflict on the Pastor. They merely use vilolence to silence people.

You put a gun in government's hands in the form of laws, they may get to an opinion you hold that you want to express.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Albert Einstein, in his last

Albert Einstein, in his last letter referred to his Jewish tradition god of Abraham as "a childish superstition".

Thomas Jefferson equated the virgin birth of Jesus as being in the same category as Minerva being born out of Jupiter.

He also said that religion should be afraid of science "like witches scowl at daylight".

Those quotes can be viewed by some as "hate" no matter how irrational that is in reality.

So if we always got to decide for ourselves what "hate" is, we would end up under a government that silences everyone, even if the person accused of hate is being taken out of context.

If I got to decide what "hate" is Jean would be in prison(IF WE GO BY YOUR MODEL) Because my "fine" would be so huge he wouldn't be able to pay it. No different than a traffic ticket. If you don't pay the fine you go to jail.

Since none of us can agree on whom we like or what can or cannot be said, the only common ground we have is the common law of not physically harming each other.

Jean has every right to say "my god is going to kick your ass" and "Atheists will burn in hell" . I think that is hateful an bigoted. But If I want my right to say, "God is superstition" I have to allow him to spew his crap.

THAT is what makes us civil, not our common likes or labels.

You want to put this Pastor in the "Penalty box", shoot his website an e-mail and tell him what  a prick he is. Gather protesters and protest outside his church in a legal manor. Burn a cross or a bible yourself to show him what a dick he is being himself.

He has the legal right to be an asshole. Neither he, or anyone should be fined or much less murdered for merely offending someone else.

Otherwise Jay Leno and Letterman and Rush Limbaugh would all be arrested.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4159
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 Looking for a kinder , gentler Super Moderator (who could banned me) . . .

Quote:
That is an incredibly OFFENSIVE thing to say! I am deeply offended to the core of my being that you would advocate PUNISHING someone for merely causing offense!

 

    Seriously , Maybe you could do a better job ? Hang on a minute. If you'd gone through my thinking you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box" .....  Apparently, I am only concerned about the expansion of  what is considered a "hate crime". "Hate crime" laws SHOULD REMAIN 'as is'!  No limit on freedom can inevitably only exacerbate this very newly disturbing trend .. Proud to own the position  

 

 

I'm missing something. What exactly is the "very newly disturbing trend"? Burning the Koran (or any other text or symbol) isn't a new trend. It has gone on for hundreds (thousands?) of years. There have even been Supreme Court cases when the government tried to ban flag burning. The Court determined burning the US Flag was free speech and therefore protected.

 

Hate crime legislation doesn't outlaw new actions, it simply changes the penalty based on intent for crimes that are already illegal such as murder or assault. Hate crime laws have nothing to do with speech. I am against hate crime legislation but I don't see how that is relevant to this nutjob. He burned a book, burning books is (and should be) legal.

 

 

 

Edit: Oh yeah, and @ Natural, that was LMAO funny. Thank you.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Looking for a kinder , gentler Super Moderator (who could banned me) . . .

Quote:
That is an incredibly OFFENSIVE thing to say! I am deeply offended to the core of my being that you would advocate PUNISHING someone for merely causing offense!

 

    Seriously , Maybe you could do a better job ? Hang on a minute. If you'd gone through my thinking you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box" .....  Apparently, I am only concerned about the expansion of  what is considered a "hate crime". "Hate crime" laws SHOULD REMAIN 'as is'!  No limit on freedom can inevitably only exacerbate this very newly disturbing trend .. Proud to own the position  

 

 

I'm missing something. What exactly is the "very newly disturbing trend"? Burning the Koran (or any other text or symbol) isn't a new trend. It has gone on for hundreds (thousands?) of years. There have even been Supreme Court cases when the government tried to ban flag burning. The Court determined burning the US Flag was free speech and therefore protected.

 

Hate crime legislation doesn't outlaw new actions, it simply changes the penalty based on intent for crimes that are already illegal such as murder or assault. Hate crime laws have nothing to do with speech. I am against hate crime legislation but I don't see how that is relevant to this nutjob. He burned a book, burning books is (and should be) legal.

 

 

 

Edit: Oh yeah, and @ Natural, that was LMAO funny. Thank you.

Thats the other thing. I don't think any victim deserves special pleading favoring from violence if they are mudered for their money, or murdered for their race or religion. Dead is dead no matter why they were murdered.

The law already takes into account degree in punishment and gives less of a penalty to "sudden act" vs "lying in wait" vs "longer term premeditation".

AND I agree, as horrible as book burning is it is still legal. Burning property that does not belong to you is illegal, as it should be.

Caving into these murderous thugs is dangerous to humanity. Their attitude is one of setting themselves up on a pedestal and setting  way to gain power, "respect me or else".

If westernized societies want to remain pluralistic we cannot and should not cave into their childish thug gang mentality behavior. You cannot simply murder someone or even fine someone merely because you got offended.

EVERYONE can agree in a civil society that no one FOR ANY REASON can physically harm someone else, be it for their money, or for their race, or because of what they protest.

AGAIN these thugs are NOT protesters, they are criminals. The Pastor is an asshole, but not a criminal.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 Looking for a kinder , gentler Super Moderator (who could banned me) . . .

Quote:
That is an incredibly OFFENSIVE thing to say! I am deeply offended to the core of my being that you would advocate PUNISHING someone for merely causing offense!

 

    Seriously , Maybe you could do a better job ? Hang on a minute. If you'd gone through my thinking you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box" .....  Apparently, I am only concerned about the expansion of  what is considered a "hate crime". "Hate crime" laws SHOULD REMAIN 'as is'!  No limit on freedom can inevitably only exacerbate this very newly disturbing trend .. Proud to own the position  

Dana, I'm having trouble understanding what you wrote there.

Better job doing what? (I suspect you maybe took me seriously ... ? I was only pointing out the absurdity and self-defeating nature of your notion that people deserve to be punished for simply causing someone offense. There is *no such thing* as a right to *not* be offended. And there never should be. I hope you can agree to that.)

By the way, you are in no danger of being banned. Don't be fooled by my badges. I'm just a long-time supporter and sometimes help move posts around and fix edits and things like that.

Okay, back to your writing:

You: "If you'd gone through my thinking you cant very well put his butt in the "penalty box" "

Me: ?? What? Are you talking about prison or something? I didn't mention anything about that. I simply regurgitated your claim that he should be somehow 'fined' as a punishment.

You: "Apparently, I am only concerned about the expansion of  what is considered a "hate crime".":

Me: Again, what? What hate crime? You mean burning a Quran????? How is that a hate crime?

You: "No limit on freedom can inevitably only exacerbate this very newly disturbing trend"

Me: Um, what does that sentence mean? I cannot parse it. And what is the disturbing trend?

Sorry if my English grammar neurons are simply misfiring, I just don't get what you're trying to say.

 

Okay, last thing <ahem>: Your reply to me was incredibly OFFENSIVE!!!1!11eleventyone!!1!!1 I'm warning you now! Do not INSULT my beliefs by disagreeing with me in any way. If you do not reply to this post within 24 hours, completely agreeing with my SACRED personal opinions(!) I will viciously murder another completely unrelated and innocent baby and eat it with cannibalistic RELISH (and mustard).

So, you have now been warned. You know I've already eaten one baby. You know what happens when you excercise your right to disagree with me.... RANDOM DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!

There is no excuse for you now. If you fail to completely agree with me in 24 hours, the blood will be on YOUR hands. Not only that! You will also have to pay a fine! (That's only fair, since it was your suggestion anyway.) Obviously, my irrational reaction to your failure to OBEY my silly demands will be your moral failing, since I am merely a mindless robot with a knife at a baby's throat, with no moral responsibility for my own actions. If you push my ignition button, I have no choice by to strike up the BBQ!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Edit: Oh

Beyond Saving wrote:

Edit: Oh yeah, and @ Natural, that was LMAO funny. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I'm glad someone other than myself thought so, too. Smiling

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Othman (the third Caliph

Othman (the third Caliph after Muhammad and his personal friend) ordered all versions of the Quran besides his own burned. Muslims did it first. Sticking out tongue

 


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Good. Let him do it and be

Good. Let him do it and be the next murder victim by some Jihadist. One less cult leader, plus we get to arrest an Islamic terrorist. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Good. Let him do it and be the next murder victim by some Jihadist. One less cult leader, plus we get to arrest an Islamic terrorist. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

You are assuming every Muslim who lives in the united states is a terrorist? If they are not, and especially if they are legal citizens, I would rather my government not, much less a private citizen, go around killing people just because of their label.

That is what this Pastor would do if given the chance. He wouldn't wait for evidence he would just assume guilt and shoot anyone with a Turban just because of the Turban.

You may not remember but a day or so after 9/11 some assholes in Texas murdered a innocent  Seikh because they thought he was a Muslim. 

I am all for going after thugs and the assholes who mudered the UN members. I am not for living in a paranoid society were we all suffer from xenophobia. I do not want my neighbor, much less my government, presuming guilt based on label.

Hating superstition and god belief is a matter of debate. Lumping 4 billion people and demonozing every individual based on a label is absurd and will get innocent people killed.

"All atheists love Hitler"

"All Catholics molest children"

"All blacks are thieves"

"All gays want to turn your kid gay"

"All Muslims are terrorists"

 

Any rightful anger you have for the Muslims who were the participants should not involve assuming the guilt of everyone who holds that label. I do not want to live in a world where fear rules.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I do not

Brian37 wrote:

 

I do not want to live in a world where fear rules.

 

   Then you better pack your bags and find somewhere else to live.  Good luck with that Brian.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"All atheists

Brian37 wrote:

"All atheists love Hitler"

"All Catholics molest children"

"All blacks are thieves"

"All gays want to turn your kid gay"

"All Muslims are terrorists"

 

   I am possessed by many biases against many groups based upon many factors.  Nevertheless I would never maintain the ridiculous assertion that  "all members of group X exhibit negative behaviour." There are always exceptions.  Any fool can see that.  

  If I were a modern day Tutsi living in the African nation of Rwanda it would  be foolish of me to assert that statistically all Hutus were filled with genocidal inclinations.  ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide    .....and btw, there were Hutus who refused to engage in the slaughter of their fellow Tutsis.  The killings happened anyway. )  

   What would be foolish would be for me to maintain an attitude that rejects the very well documented hatred of the victim group.  There would be many, many reasons for me, as a Tutsi, to continue to cast a wary eye upon my Hutu neighbors.  How many reasons to maintain suspicion ?   About 800,000 reasons .

 Even in my own society I will always maintain an attitude of vigilance no matter what pejorative terms my critics might use to describe it.

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

I do not want to live in a world where fear rules.

 

   Then you better pack your bags and find somewhere else to live.  Good luck with that Brian.

Actually, ....

...

Ummm

What were we talking about again?

Sorry I got distracted by ....

...

avatar...

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"All atheists love Hitler"

"All Catholics molest children"

"All blacks are thieves"

"All gays want to turn your kid gay"

"All Muslims are terrorists"

 

   I am possessed by many biases against many groups based upon many factors.  Nevertheless I would never maintain the ridiculous assertion that  "all members of group X exhibit negative behaviour." There are always exceptionsAny fool can see that. 

Except for the ones that can't, right?    Eye-wink

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:   I am

natural wrote:

 

 

Except for the ones that can't, right?    Eye-wink

 

                

 

 

If there are people who can not recognize that there are deviations then that is a problem.  They are immune to evidence.  

  As for myself most theists on this forum I find to be extremely annoying.  Nevertheless, I actually like the two theists Eloise, and Luminon and value their participation here.  They are exceptions    ...the vast majority of theists on this web site suck.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: Actually,

natural wrote:

 

 

Actually, ....

...

Ummm

What were we talking about again?

Sorry I got distracted by ....

...

avatar...

 

   Don't know if you are actually being serious. At any rate the girl in my current avatar is a British model named Rachel Aldana. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"All atheists love Hitler"

"All Catholics molest children"

"All blacks are thieves"

"All gays want to turn your kid gay"

"All Muslims are terrorists"

 

   I am possessed by many biases against many groups based upon many factors.  Nevertheless I would never maintain the ridiculous assertion that  "all members of group X exhibit negative behaviour." There are always exceptions.  Any fool can see that.  

  If I were a modern day Tutsi living in the African nation of Rwanda it would  be foolish of me to assert that statistically all Hutus were filled with genocidal inclinations.  ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide    .....and btw, there were Hutus who refused to engage in the slaughter of their fellow Tutsis.  The killings happened anyway. )  

   What would be foolish would be for me to maintain an attitude that rejects the very well documented hatred of the victim group.  There would be many, many reasons for me, as a Tutsi, to continue to cast a wary eye upon my Hutu neighbors.  How many reasons to maintain suspicion ?   About 800,000 reasons .

 Even in my own society I will always maintain an attitude of vigilance no matter what pejorative terms my critics might use to describe it.

 

Still stuck on labels.

ALL OF THIS THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, including evolution IS a natural fear of OUTSIDERS, we all have it.

My point is that we will not minimize division by assuming guilt. We wont solve human division by defaulting to assumption of guilt.

You take pets. One has been there for a while and a new one is introduced and the older pet is fearful of the new one, BUT THEY GET OVER IT.

What you suggest is that we never look for the positive. We always assume that someone is out to get us.

Do you think that when you talk like that the Muslims who want nothing to do with the UN muderer's they would say "Guilt by association is fine with me".

Fear is part of our evolution, it DOES help us survive. But it doesn't help break up the tribal labels they use to justify the harm to us you fear yourself. It is something our species needs to overcome.

I don't think our species needs to be always stuck in gang warfare.

I DON'T CARE if every Muslim except one was a terrorist. The one who isn't is a human being just like you and if they have done nothing criminally wrong they should NOT be treated any differently than you.

For someone who is feared as being a Commie and Hitler lover, I think you forget what a Christian majority would do to you based on label alone, if there were no secular government protecting you.

"I don't think atheists should be considered citizens" George Bush Senior

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: Even

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Even in my own society I will always maintain an attitude of vigilance no matter what pejorative terms my critics might use to describe it.

 

Who the fuck is saying don't "watch out"? Not me.

There is nothing wrong with "vigilance", but there is everything wrong with vigilantes.

Casting a wide net, may catch bad guys, but it is never a price I want to pay myself, in doing that, to take out someone innocent just because I fear ANYTHING OR ANYONE.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Still stuck

Brian37 wrote:

 

Still stuck on labels.

  What ?  You mean Hutu and Tutsi ?   Didn't you say that your former wife was a "Japanese".   That was a label, also.  Just like "atheist" is a label.  Labels are used to identify.   They are merely a tool of language. Your hysterical fear of labels serves no useful purpose except to make you appear hysterical.

 

Brian37 wrote:
  What you suggest is that we never look for the positive. 
 

   Did I really ?  You may not like the use of labels but you certainly have no problem projecting stereotypes .

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  I don't think our species needs to be always stuck in gang warfare.

      Neither do I.  Btw, isn't "gang" a label ? 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  ....I think you forget what a Christian majority would do to you based on label alone, if there were no secular government protecting you. 

   I fear all forms of government religious or not.   Go to Germany, or Austria or various other effectively post-religious / left leaning western European societies ( Canada, too ) and publicly proclaim that the Holocaust didn't happen.  You will be criminally prosecuted based upon nothing but your wordsMany progressive societies embrace diversity except diversity of opinion.  Step out of the accepted guidelines and you will find yourself sitting in a cell on charges of employing  "dangerous" hate speech.

  Many of the former Warsaw Pact nations and other Soviet client states were virtually free of any real religious influence in their laws ( they were secular governments )  you wouldn't consider them as freedom loving societies would you ?  Do you really think the East German Stasi ( secret police ) were created to protect the freedom of it's people ?

  In your zeal for equality you tend to oversimplify how you analyze the world.  No offense.

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Still stuck on labels.

  What ?  You mean Hutu and Tutsi ?   Didn't you say that your former wife was a "Japanese".   That was a label, also.  Just like "atheist" is a label.  Labels are used to identify.   They are merely a tool of language. Your hysterical fear of labels serves no useful purpose except to make you appear hysterical.

 

Brian37 wrote:
  What you suggest is that we never look for the positive. 
 

   Did I really ?  You may not like the use of labels but you certainly have no problem projecting stereotypes .

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  I don't think our species needs to be always stuck in gang warfare.

      Neither do I.  Btw, isn't "gang" a label ? 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  ....I think you forget what a Christian majority would do to you based on label alone, if there were no secular government protecting you. 

   I fear all forms of government religious or not.   Go to Germany, or Austria or various other effectively post-religious / left leaning western European societies ( Canada, too ) and publicly proclaim that the Holocaust didn't happen.  You will be criminally prosecuted based upon nothing but your wordsMany progressive societies embrace diversity except diversity of opinion.  Step out of the accepted guidelines and you will find yourself sitting in a cell on charges of employing  "dangerous" hate speech.

  Many of the former Warsaw Pact nations and other Soviet client states were virtually free of any real religious influence in their laws ( they were secular governments )  you wouldn't consider them as freedom loving societies would you ?  Do you really think the East German Stasi ( secret police ) were created to protect the freedom of it's people ?

  In your zeal for equality you tend to oversimplify how you analyze the world.  No offense.

 

 

 

 

I don't know what has gotten into you.

EVERYONE uses labels, you are atheist and so am I. "atheist" is a label. What does that have to do with what I am saying.

What matters to me is our species doesn't become more divided BECAUSE of demonizing labels. I don't demonize my x wife because she is Japanese. I would demonize her as an individual IF she were an abortion bomber, but I wouldn't lump all Japanese in with abortion bombers just because I call her Japanese.

I WILL NOT do and refuse to do is make a label an excuse to fear everyone who holds that label. I don't know what you would suggest?


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4159
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Sometimes we fit stereotypes more than we admit


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

Still stuck on labels.

  What ?  You mean Hutu and Tutsi ?   Didn't you say that your former wife was a "Japanese".   That was a label, also.  Just like "atheist" is a label.  Labels are used to identify.   They are merely a tool of language. Your hysterical fear of labels serves no useful purpose except to make you appear hysterical.

 

Brian37 wrote:
  What you suggest is that we never look for the positive. 
 

   Did I really ?  You may not like the use of labels but you certainly have no problem projecting stereotypes .

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  I don't think our species needs to be always stuck in gang warfare.

      Neither do I.  Btw, isn't "gang" a label ? 

 

Brian37 wrote:
  ....I think you forget what a Christian majority would do to you based on label alone, if there were no secular government protecting you. 

   I fear all forms of government religious or not.   Go to Germany, or Austria or various other effectively post-religious / left leaning western European societies ( Canada, too ) and publicly proclaim that the Holocaust didn't happen.  You will be criminally prosecuted based upon nothing but your wordsMany progressive societies embrace diversity except diversity of opinion.  Step out of the accepted guidelines and you will find yourself sitting in a cell on charges of employing  "dangerous" hate speech.

  Many of the former Warsaw Pact nations and other Soviet client states were virtually free of any real religious influence in their laws ( they were secular governments )  you wouldn't consider them as freedom loving societies would you ?  Do you really think the East German Stasi ( secret police ) were created to protect the freedom of it's people ?

  In your zeal for equality you tend to oversimplify how you analyze the world.  No offense.

 

 

 

 

And your zeal to assume guilt is what THEY DO. I am not oversimplifying anything. The world is a scary place with lots of people who do horrible things to others, EVEN GOVERNMENTS.

Vigilance is the way you maintain your freedom. Paranoia and fear is the quickest way to give a government a way to take away your ability to be vigilant.

I do not think the way to bring others to the trend to secularism and pluralism is to buy into, or sell the same fear others use to demonize you.

Bad things are always going to happen in life and there will

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I WILL NOT

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

I WILL NOT do and refuse to do is make a label an excuse to fear everyone who holds that label.

 

 

 

  You just demonstrated yet again that you are incapable of understanding that I do not allege that all members of any group are guilty of the bad behaviour of the majority .   I have already stated that there are always exceptions.   Stop accusing me of maintaining a position that I clearly ( except to you ) do not hold. 

  

    What you should "do"  is stop with this repeated exaggeration that you sling around against anyone who differs with you.   Apparently you are the one who is incapable of seeing the exceptions since you keep accusing me of having this all or nothing mentality. 

   You are the one who has consistently fell back upon making sweeping generalizations by the way you repeatedly mischaracterise my views.

  You are the irony of ironies and I bet you still don't know what the hell I'm talking about. ( ie, you're an anti-bigotry BIGOT whom is either unwilling or incapable of seeing your opposition for who they really are.   You only see stereotypes and that is why you keep accusing me of holding positions that go well beyond anything that I have stated as my own views.  )

   I've have to go to work now. 

   

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

I WILL NOT do and refuse to do is make a label an excuse to fear everyone who holds that label.

 

 

 

  You just demonstrated yet again that you are incapable of understanding that I do not allege that all members of any group are guilty of the bad behaviour of the majority .   I have already stated that there are always exceptions.   Stop accusing me of maintaining a position that I clearly ( except to you ) do not hold. 

  

    What you should "do"  is stop with this repeated exaggeration that you sling around against anyone who differs with you.   Apparently you are the one who is incapable of seeing the exceptions since you keep accusing me of having this all or nothing mentality. 

   You are the one who has consistently fell back upon making sweeping generalizations by the way you repeatedly mischaracterise my views.

  You are the irony of ironies and I bet you still don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

   I've have to go to work now. 

   

 

 

Ok, since I have everything so wrong here. You be the problem solver and tell me HOW you would go about solving terrorism if you had the power to do so?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4159
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, since I

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, since I have everything so wrong here. You be the problem solver and tell me HOW you would go about solving terrorism if you had the power to do so?

 

Kill the terrorists? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, since I have everything so wrong here. You be the problem solver and tell me HOW you would go about solving terrorism if you had the power to do so?

 

Kill the terrorists? 

Right and agreed, Still not my issue.

HOW we go about doing that is just as important if not more important than simply doing it.

It cuts to the core, even if they didn't exist, as to what kind of society we want to live under long term. I do not want my government scrapping the Constitution and assuming guilt. Not just on this issue, but on any accusation of any crime to ANY citizen.

It may be "oversimplifying" you might say, but goes back to "It is better to let one guilty person go free than to convict one innocent person".

It took us far to long to recognize Native Americans, Blacks and women as equally protected under the Constitution. Even to this day we still have a problem with gays and Muslims and even us atheists as being falsely viewed as a threat to our freedom.

Fear of outsiders is an evolutionary trait, while being perfectly natural, we are also capable as a species of empathy and finding common ground. Our pluralism in the west is a result of laws not being fear based and presumption of guilt based.

If we want to pull theism into the modern age, we wont do it by using the same fear of outsiders they use to demonize us.

"Kill the terrorists" GOT YA, WITH YA, no doubt about it.

I just don't think we need to be Dirty Harry or John Wayne to do it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  You be the

Brian37 wrote:

 

 You be the problem solver and tell me HOW you would go about solving terrorism if you had the power to do so?

 

  So you're asking me how to solve the international terrorist problem ?   Hmmmm, first I would  employ every diplomatic approach that could be brought to bear upon the Muslim terrorists.   If that were to fail I would resort to direct military action against them. 

 Perhaps I would send in a Division of US Marines.  I would provide each Marine with a powerful hand-held bullhorn and I would instruct them to LABEL the terrorists to death.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4159
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, since I have everything so wrong here. You be the problem solver and tell me HOW you would go about solving terrorism if you had the power to do so?

 

Kill the terrorists? 

Right and agreed, Still not my issue.

HOW we go about doing that is just as important if not more important than simply doing it.

It cuts to the core, even if they didn't exist, as to what kind of society we want to live under long term. I do not want my government scrapping the Constitution and assuming guilt. Not just on this issue, but on any accusation of any crime to ANY citizen.

It may be "oversimplifying" you might say, but goes back to "It is better to let one guilty person go free than to convict one innocent person".

It took us far to long to recognize Native Americans, Blacks and women as equally protected under the Constitution. Even to this day we still have a problem with gays and Muslims and even us atheists as being falsely viewed as a threat to our freedom.

Fear of outsiders is an evolutionary trait, while being perfectly natural, we are also capable as a species of empathy and finding common ground. Our pluralism in the west is a result of laws not being fear based and presumption of guilt based.

If we want to pull theism into the modern age, we wont do it by using the same fear of outsiders they use to demonize us.

"Kill the terrorists" GOT YA, WITH YA, no doubt about it.

I just don't think we need to be Dirty Harry or John Wayne to do it.

 

 

And which American citizen is being deprived of their constitutional rights? Show me one and I will be right there protecting them. So far the vast majority of people who have lost their rights have been non-muslims (such as airport security) because of the obsession with avoiding profiling. We know who the terrorists are. They are young muslim males with ties to a very specific set of people in a very specific set of countries. Grandma isn't blowing up the plane with her walker. The young 20 something Muslim male is a potential threat and therefore, should receive greater scrutiny.

 

When I walk into any public area, I take note of the people around me for potential threats and develop contingency plans in my head. Call me paranoid, but I almost always have a plan in my head of what to do if some nutjob starts randomly shooting or the bank I am in is held up etc. And I profile like crazy. If I am on a plane, I know which passengers are capable of becoming potential threats and if you asked me to list them from most likely to be a threat to least likely I could do so. If someone near the top of the list starts acting suspiciously, I am watching them. If I am on a plane and a Middle Eastern man is fiddling with his shoe I am going to get concerned. If it is grandma, I'm not. I think it is important to be prepared for such things, because even though they are extremely unlikely, once it starts happening, it is too late to develop a plan.  

 

Take Nidal Malik Hasan for example. The military knew he was radicalized Muslim in 2005. They KNEW he was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki, a known terrorist and enemy of the country. Yet they did NOTHING because they were too fucking worried about profiling. And now 13 people are dead.

 

We are at war and we have to treat it like a war. Anyone who is in communication with al-Awlaki should be treated like anyone who was in communication with the Nazi's in WWII or with the Soviets in the cold war. Especially if you are in a position of authority inside our military.

 

Now, we shouldn't round up every Muslim in the country, but we should tighten immigration for anyone originating from terrorist countries and fit the general description of a radicalized muslim. We should investigate any person who is in active communication with known terrorist leaders or organizations. And we should bomb the shit out of any terrorist camp we find. And we should develop our own oil so we are not providing the fuckers with millions of dollars.

 

You might think that labels don't matter. And in a utopia, you would be right. But we don't live in a utopia. There are people out there who will kill you because of your skin color, because your American, because of your atheism etc. When those potential threats can be readily identified, you are foolish to go through the effort of being "color blind". It matters to them, and they are at war with us. Pretending it doesn't matter isn't going to help anything.  


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:   You

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

  You might think that labels don't matter. And in a utopia, you would be right. But we don't live in a utopia. There are people out there who will kill you because of your skin color, because your American, because of your atheism etc. When those potential threats can be readily identified, you are foolish to go through the effort of being "color blind". It matters to them, and they are at war with us. Pretending it doesn't matter isn't going to help anything.  

 

   Agree 100 %.     Out of necessity the needs of reality must trump sentimental "feel good" ideologies.  Ignoring danger doesn't make it go away.