I can see it now, eh?

[Hopper]

Just because some types of rudeness are tolerated doesn't mean they all have to be.

If it aint, then it's not "rudenesss" you're crackin down on, it's sumthin else. If routine ridicule and denouncment of, say, religious beliefs, is permitted, encouraged and even required while any such behavior toward atheists is disallowed, discouraged and strictly forbidden, then it would be absurd to say that a crackdown on comments unwelcomed and disapproved of by atheists was a crackdown on "rudeness."

Of course the atheists probably wouldn't see it that way. For many people, rudeness is only rudeness if they think someone is being "rude to" them. As rude as they may be to others, well, that aint rudeness, it's just "fact." Furthermore, they often think it is "rude" for you to fail to share, approve of, and promulgate their opinions and values.

Sayin "no one can be rude to Johnny, but everyone else is fair game," can NOT be a "crackdown on rudeness." It can be an elevation of Johnny to special, protected and favored status, but not a "crackdown on rudeness." The explanation cannot really be "because it's rude." The only credible "explanation" (such as it is) is that it's "because it is Johnny."

I find it hard to believe you don't think such religions exist. I find it unlikely that you can't already name a couple yourself. I find it almost impossible ot believe you can't discover such information on your own. So, it seems to me like you're just trying to call me out.

I didn't say I believed anything. I done told ya I aint no religious scholar, or nuthin. I am interested in passages in holy scripture from religions worldwide which say morality is dependent upon skin color. Is this the "voodoo" religion, or sumthin?

Needless to say, I'm axin you for more than just: "OK; 1. Buddism 2. Judaism 3. Islam, and 4. Christianity.

I'm interested in your basis for making such claims more that I am the mere assertion and enumeration of of your claims.

 

[Scat]

Letting the irony sink in.

Yeah, I caught it last night just after I hit submit. I tried to edit but as the edit function seems to be out of order I gave up and went to bed.

 

[One Brow]

If it aint, then it's not "rudenesss" you're crackin down on, it's sumthin else. If routine ridicule and denouncment of, say, religious beliefs, is permitted, encouraged and even required while any such behavior toward atheists is disallowed, discouraged and strictly forbidden, then it would be absurd to say that a crackdown on comments unwelcomed and disapproved of by atheists was a crackdown on "rudeness."

A side note: atheists have no religious beliefs to ridicule. Outside of that, I believe I understand what you are trying to say.

Attempting to relate this to the current topic of whether homophobic comments will be tolerated, are there any heterophobic comments you feel have tolerated? Or, are you expressing that heterophobic comments might be tolerated in the future?

For many people, rudeness is only rudeness if they think someone is being "rude to" them.

For many, yes.

I am interested in passages in holy scripture from religions worldwide

I don't recall claiming the beliefs were written down directly as such in various holy scriptures.

Is this the "voodoo" religion, or sumthin?

To my knowledge, the larger voodoo religions don't say much about skin color and morality. I could be mistaken.

You can find a list of a few different religions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity#Groups

 

[VINYLONE]

Another incredibly pathetic thread of back and forth between Jazzfanzz' two resident hacks.

 

[Hopper]

I see, eh, Eriic, so now you're equatin the KKK and other white supremacist groups with the Christian religion, eh? This notwithstandin that your own source explicitly says: "Christian Identity believers reject the beliefs of most contemporary Christian denominations."


Should I have guessed this is what you had in mind when you referred to "lots of religions?"

Once again, even your own source does not call the beliefs of these violent extremists "religious" It explains their "ideology." If racist ideology is a "religion" then so is atheist ideology, which you deny. Go figure, eh?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

94% of atheists are racists.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

87% of atheists are homophobes.

 

[Hopper]

You can find a list of a few different religions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity#Groups

For those (intelligent) posters who didn't bother clickin on this citation, here are some of the "few different religions" Eric is referrin to:

1 & 2: The Order and The New Order

Robert Jay Mathews formed a clandestine cell in part from members of Aryan Nations called The Order (1983–1984) which committed a number of crimes, including the murder of Alan Berg. While the group had a number of Christian Identity adherents, Mathews himself followed Odinism, as did several other Order members. Dennis McGiffen, who also had ties to the AN, formed a cell called The New Order, over a decade later, in imitation of The Order, the members were arrested before they could follow through on their plans to attack the Southern Poverty Law Center.

3: Aryan Nations

The Aryan Nations (AN) is a group that adheres to the Christian Identity belief system. The group espouses dislike towards Jews, blacks and other minorities, as well as the United States federal government. The original ultimate goal of the AN is to forcibly take five northwestern states – Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Montana – from the United States government in order to establish an Aryan homeland. This particular ideology is known throughout the White power movement as the Northwest Territorial Imperative. The AN was headquartered at Hayden Lake, Idaho from the late 1970s until February 2001.

A little more insight, provided by Eric's citation, about these "religions""

"Most Americans are unaware of the Christian Identity Movement. Despite its low profile, Christian Identity has influenced many white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements...The Christian Identity movement first received widespread attention by mainstream media in 1984, when the white nationalist organization known as The Order embarked on a murderous crime spree before being taken down by the FBI."

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Another incredibly pathetic thread of back and forth between Jazzfanzz' two resident hacks.

Spoken by the President of the Association.

 

[VINYLONE]

Spoken by the President of the Association.

Your rep power is an illusion. The only people that vouch for you is Hostess.

 

[Hopper]

I don't recall claiming the beliefs were written down directly as such in various holy scriptures.

I remember you quoting, and then purporting to respond to, this statement of mine when you made your "lots of religions" claim, eh, Eric?

I aint no religious scholar, or nuthin, but I hear-tell that the Bible, and many other "holy scriptures" from various religions world-wide, seem to think that killin people is "distasteful." Same with homosexuality.

 

[One Brow]

I see, eh, Eriic, so now you're equatin the KKK and other white supremacist groups with the Christian religion, eh?

I presume this post is a joke or satire of some sort on your part.

 

[Hopper]

I presume this post is a joke or satire of some sort on your part.

Eric, it is your "presumptions" that cause so much confusion between us, I figure. Just like when you presumed I MUST know you were referrin to the order, the new order, and aryan nations, when you made a claim pertaining to "lots of religions." Just like you presumed I MUST know that you had an idiosyncratic definition of "bigotry" (and agree with it's validity and applicabilty) when I couldn't discern any meaningfulness in your claims/suggestions about bigotry.

Sure it "sounds good" (to a devout believer in the type of ideology you subscribe to, anyway) to glibly assert that "lots of religions" espouse racism (and thereby try to identify what I had referred to as "religious thought" with racism), but it don't mean nuthin and it aint really comprehensible.

 

[One Brow]

For those (intelligent) posters who didn't bother clickin on this citation, here are some of the "few different religions" Eric is referrin to:

Try again.

Christian Identity groups include "The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord", Phineas Priesthood, the Oklahoma Constitutional Militia, also known as the Universal Church of God.

All religions, all racist. The paragraph was inbetween the title linked and the part you quoted.

I remember you quoting, and then purporting to respond to, this statement of mine when you made your "lots of religions" claim, eh, Eric?

To me, it does not matter is the claim is supposedly derived from a "holy scripture" or any other source, or the purpose of this discussion. Why would it matter to you?

Eric, it is your "presumptions" that cause so much confusion between us, I figure.

My presumption that you actually read a link before deciding what to do with it seems to be high among them.

Just like when you presumed I MUST know you were referrin to the order, the new order, and aryan nations, when you made a claim pertaining to "lots of religions."

You think these are the only ones? These are just the American-based Christian religions, and even then the list is likely not complete.

Just like you presumed I MUST know that you had an idiosyncratic definition of "bigotry"

I use a dictionary-standard definiiton of bigotry. Hardly idiosyncratic.

 

[Hopper]

Yeah, right, eh, Eric? I'm sure the extremists at many a radical website would readily agree with you, and even use your terminology in the same manner as you do, but ya gotta remember that ya aint at them websites when you're here, see?

The very citation you use does NOT even begin to talk about many different religions. It only addresses one distorted reinterpretation of the christian Bible so as to make it consistent with the pre-existing delusional and fanatical beliefs of small groups of racists. It is not about a "religion" to begin with, but even if it were, it would not be about "lots of" religions, any more that the fact that there are "lots of" (different) Baptist Churches in this country means each church constitutes a different religion.

I'm merely stating what is no doubt obvious to most. I am aghast that I feel I actually have to "explain" that to you.

As I understand it, Hitler, like these nutcases, claimed to be a "christian." I suppose that can only mean one of two things, eh? Either:

1. Christianity and Nazism are the same thing, or else

2. Nazism is itself a religion.

These hate groups don't claim to be a new religion (called "Racism,", or whatever). They claim to be devoted Christians. They aint, and their stupid proclamations can't turn christianity into sumthin it aint.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, right, eh, Eric? I'm sure the extremists at many a radical website would readily agree with you, and even use your terminology in the same manner as you do, but ya gotta remember that ya aint at them websites when you're here, see?

Are you referring to the term "bigoted", and do you mean radcial websites like the American Heritage Dictionary? Otherwise, I have no idea to what you refer.

The very citation you use does NOT even begin to talk about many different religions.

I agree. It lists three religions that met the needed requirments, but that page does not talk about them in detail.

It only addresses one distorted reinterpretation of the christian Bible ...

Whether a religion is "one distorted reinterpretation" of something or not is irrelevant to my point. I have no intention of discussing it, any more that I will discuss whether the interpretation that the homosexuality is condemned in the Bible is legitimate, which some Christian credit and some Christians deny. These determinations are ultimately arbitrary, with people believing the interpretation they wish to believe, for the most part.

You raised an objection:

I aint no religious scholar, or nuthin, but I hear-tell that the Bible, and many other "holy scriptures" from various religions world-wide, seem to think that killin people is "distasteful." Same with homosexuality.

Is this an attempt to abolish religious thought, that it?

My response, in part:

Lots of religions think darkly-skinned people are morally inferior to lightly-skinned people. If those sentiments are expressed on this board, I have no doubt the moderators will issue warnings/infractions on that basis. You want to call that abolishing religious thought, go ahead. ... So, unless you expect the moderators to tolerate any sort of behavior that someone says is religious, your question is moot.

Ratter than addressing that issue, you said you needed some sort of proof that such religions exist. Now you know they exist, how about going back to the issue. Do you expect the moderators to tolerate any sort of behavior that someone says is religious? If not, is there a reason that, in this forum, homosexual slurs deserve to be tolerated more than racial slurs?

... any more that the fact that there are "lots of" (different) Baptist Churches in this country means each church constitutes a different religion.

If two different churches express different official religious beliefs, they are different religions.

I'm merely stating what is no doubt obvious to most.

What is obvious to most must be correct?

 

[Hopper]

If two different churches express different official religious beliefs, they are different religions.

Then any claim that there are 50,000,000 christians in the world (or whatever number is claimed, I'm just makin that up) is utterly false. The existence of 50,000,000 people with religious beliefs merely proves that there are 50,000,000 different religions in the world.

The fact that I don't feel like addressing the rest of the selective response you made in your last post does not mean that I agree with it. I have told you many times that I'm not very interested in arguments based primarily on semantics and verbal equivocation. Word choice does not dictate the substance or truth of a situation. Ideally the substance or truth of a situation would naturally generate an honest and appropriate choice of words to describe it. Don't always happen, and I tend to lose interest when people think they can dictate substance with word choice.

 

[Sloanfeld]

Hey is my avatar homophobic?

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Hey is my avatar homophobic?

If you have to ask...

 

[Hopper]

Eric, lemme ax ya a question, eh? Let's take two differing views, to wit:

1. The practice of homosexuality is tasteful, and

2. The practce homosexuality is distasteful.

Do you consider yourself to be "tolerant" of view #2?

Using your seemingly preferred authority of the American Heritage Dictionary, "tolerant" means "Inclined to tolerate the beliefs, practices, or traits of others; forbearing," whereas "intolerant" means "not tolerant."

"Tolerate," as a verb, is defined by this source as:

1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
3. To put up with; endure.

Do you consider yourself "tolerant" of (i.e., willing to tolerate) view #2?

Or do you feel compelled to "prohibit" or "oppose" any belief that homosexuality is "distasteful?'