http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm

2/19/2007 8:30:08 PM

I disagree completely.

2/19/2007 8:31:57 PM

heres something that the christian right has done....

now heres something that the nazis have done...

2/19/2007 8:42:06 PM

Quote :

"This is an article by Chris Hedges that no major publication would print."

haha

2/19/2007 8:50:32 PM

^I think they put that in there for drama or something.

Quote :

"Chris Hedges, a reporter for The New York Times, is the author of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. He holds a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School . His next book, Losing Moses on the Freeway: America 's Broken Covenant With The Ten Commandments is published by The Free Press. "

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:00 PM. Reason : He's not a loon.]

2/19/2007 9:00:24 PM

I dont even read that much for my classes.

2/19/2007 9:25:37 PM

Yo Holmes to Bel-Air!

2/19/2007 9:28:34 PM

I thought we decided to stop posting links as if they were topics in and of themselves.

2/19/2007 9:41:37 PM

I thought we decided to stop posting links as if they were topics in and of themselves.

2/19/2007 9:42:07 PM

^,^^Cause there is so much good stuff in the Soap Box right now.

If you don't want to read the article, don't read it.

I'll post excerpts we can argue about. Here's one:

Quote :

"All debates with the Christian Right are useless. We cannot reach this movement. It does not want a dialogue. It cares nothing for rational thought and discussion."

2/19/2007 10:41:57 PM

^ I'd argue with it but hey I'm incapable of rational thought or dialogue, hence I'm at a loss to procede.

(not to say I agree with the website, I have no intention of reading it, just pointing out the stupidity
of making such a statement then accusing the other side of being unable to have rational discourse or whatever...)

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:28 PM. Reason : not a Nazi yo.]

2/19/2007 11:26:55 PM

^If you use the Bible to support your opinions, doesn't that mean you have no interest in rational thought or discussion?

2/19/2007 11:35:51 PM

Honestly, no, it doesn't. Or, at the very least, throwing out religious arguments as wholly irrationaly is not much better than what the religious right does in the final analysis. Your point of view may be more justifiable, but ultimately it will end in the same blind rejection as your opponent.

At some point a lot of people are going to have to swallow their pride and pretend like they think their opponents' arguments have some validity, and I say that to both sides.

Constantly calling your opponents idiots will not get us anywhere. [cc] that to the religious right as well.

2/20/2007 2:01:05 AM

if you think the religious right arent a bunch of idiots, then youre an idiot.

[/thread]

2/20/2007 2:16:41 AM

You dumb fucks

Everyone's a bunch of idiots

Learn it, love it, live it.

No group that has an easily defined title is more than a bunch of retards with some influence.

2/20/2007 2:21:31 AM

^I don't think you know what we mean by "religious right." We're talking about people who want to take over this country and establish it as a Christian state.

2/20/2007 2:25:11 AM

And whatever you want to mean by whatever you say, well, whatever. But being a member of the "religious right" does not equate to a desire to institute theocracy.

Obviously every group wants its morals (or its equivalent thereof) to be put in place, or else there'd be no point in forming a group. And while a great many people on the "religious right" might be incompetent wankers, well, I think a great many people in most groups should probably share the same moniker.

To some extent I'm pissing against the wind. I know what most people mean by "religious right," and while I'm generally a big proponent of the "words mean what people say they mean" philosophy, I'm also defensive on behalf of all of us right-leaning religious-minded folks who aren't devotees of Pat Robertson, and I hope you'll forgive me that.

2/20/2007 2:56:30 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And whatever you want to mean by whatever you say, well, whatever. But being a member of the "religious right" does not equate to a desire to institute theocracy."

You're either saying:

1) I didn't read the article, and I'm going to be a bitch.
2) I did read the article, and I think the term "Christian right" was used inappropriately, even though there was obviously a focus on Dominionists and Reconstructionists...and I'm going to be a bitch.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Obviously every group wants its morals (or its equivalent thereof) to be put in place, or else there'd be no point in forming a group."

Lame.

One group can't justify wanting to kill homosexuals by saying "Oh, well, you're trying to push your own morals with your whole 'clean drinking water' thing."

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And while a great many people on the "religious right" might be incompetent wankers, well, I think a great many people in most groups should probably share the same moniker."

And?

Again. Lame.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: To some extent I'm pissing against the wind. I know what most people mean by "religious right," and while I'm generally a big proponent of the "words mean what people say they mean" philosophy, I'm also defensive on behalf of all of us right-leaning religious-minded folks who aren't devotees of Pat Robertson, and I hope you'll forgive me that."

I'm not in a forgiving mood. I sensed sassiness from you in the first couple sentences, and I'm not sensing it anymore, but I'm gonna roll with my original tone. Absolute loons are moving in on political power, and you're defending them just cause you're embarassed that they're associated with your party. And your defense? "Yeah, they're incompetent wankers, but there are tons of incompetent wankers." And they're not just incompetent wankers...they're dangerous fundementalists. And even though they are heavily represented in politics, they actually feel disenfranchised (Homos and Mexicans are everywhere! What is happening to our America?!?!).

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: At some point a lot of people are going to have to swallow their pride and pretend like they think their opponents' arguments have some validity, and I say that to both sides. Constantly calling your opponents idiots will not get us anywhere."

I consider myself pretty open-minded. And, no, I will not pretend to respect the arguments of these people.

I don't think I've ever called you an idiot before, by the way.

2/20/2007 4:30:23 AM

omg fascism is dumber than omg communism.

2/20/2007 4:44:31 PM

[Edited on February 20, 2007 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2007 5:46:25 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPKIf you use the Bible to support your opinions, doesn't that mean you have no interest in rational thought or discussion?"

Yes that is what it means Bridget. Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, most if not all the founding fathers, all had no interest in rational thought or discussion. For that matter, Theologians and historians who use the Bible to support their ideas must also be uninterested in rational discourse. [/sarcasm]

How can you spout that nonsense? Don't you understand that a certain segment of every ideological community is in some sense logical. Some or more humble than others about their ability to reason the "truth". But each community ( atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddist, ...) in some sense attempts to reach truth. The difference is in the starting point. Some place all of their faith in human logic, other's
believe there is more than just that.

In particular, I happen to believe that God has communicated with us humans at various times and saw fit to see his communication be preserved for us in Scripture. I try to reason out my existence in the light of His instructions. Moreover, I am not excused from logic or debate, in fact I am commanded to be able to give a defense for those things I believe. This is actually in the Bible, the Bible itself calls for us to be rational, to explain to others why we believe what we do so that you can come to the truth as well and see the world for what it is. Unfortunately many Christians are not really interested in understanding what other non-Christians believe so how can they argue their point in what would be considered a "logical" way. Many people talk about logic as if it falls from on high, but what is "logical" depends on your starting point.

In most churches it is perfectly logical to give the reason "God did that"

To a strict materialist ( who denies at the outset the existence of God ) it is illogical to say "God did that"

Both camps will give "proofs" to support their contentions, but if you really look at it long enough you'll see both camps argue consistency of their belief system to rule out the other. Modern science the Jewel of rational discourse was born of men who believed in the Creator and saw science as a way to give evidence of His existence. I have friends who still do science for this reason, I have others who do it because they're materialists, both are equally logical. The difference is where they put their faith, what they take as basic.

My apologies to GrumpyGop if I have overlapped with your rebukes of Bridget, she needs to hear it twice anyway.

2/21/2007 12:47:29 AM

Quote :

"mathman: My apologies to GrumpyGop if I have overlapped with your rebukes of Bridget, she needs to hear it twice anyway."

1) You do not rebuke me.
2) What GrumpyGOP said doesn't even begin to resemble what you said, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that he does not share your sentiments.
3) You didn't read the article.

Quote :

"mathman: Modern science the Jewel of rational discourse was born of men who believed in the Creator and saw science as a way to give evidence of His existence."

Who are you to say this? And so fucking what?

Quote :

"mathman: I have friends who still do science for this reason, I have others who do it because they're materialists, both are equally logical."

You have friends who "do science" to "give evidence of His existence"? Perhaps you should elaborate.

Quote :

"mathman: Both camps will give "proofs" to support their contentions, but if you really look at it long enough you'll see both camps argue consistency of their belief system to rule out the other."

If I really look at it long enough...?

One camp uses the Bible and faith. And the other camp uses what we know, what we can prove.





You know what, fuck you.

YOU PUT WORDS LIKE LOGICAL, PROOFS, AND TRUTH IN FUCKING QUOTES.

You're absolutely not interested in rational thought or discussion. You're just a literate dumbass who learned some cutesy "arguments" at Bible camp.

Go fuck yourself.

2/21/2007 4:51:57 AM

^wow. That tirade of rational though and discussion came this close to making me renounce my religion for this nobler life you are surely experiencing.

2/21/2007 8:41:11 AM

Quote :

"YOU PUT WORDS LIKE LOGICAL, PROOFS, AND TRUTH IN FUCKING QUOTES. "

Well, logical, proof and truth are all matters of your startng position. Not to say that he's right and you're wrong, but logic and proof only work within the same system. If your starting point is that there is no god, then any argument including god is obviously illogical. At the same time, if your starting point is that there is a FSM, then any argument discounting the existance of the FSM is illogical.

Or you could look at it from a different standpoint. If you say you hold the following to be self evident "That all men are created equal" then it would be logical to argue that all men deserve the same rights. If you don't hold it to be self evident, then it would not be logical.

2/21/2007 10:37:39 AM

^^Guess how much I give a shit about people who think logical can be placed in quotes to devalue or manipulate its meaning.

^Starting point, my ass.

Faith has no place in logic.

2/21/2007 1:00:11 PM

Quote :

"Faith has no place in logic."

Faith in the human mind is the basis of all logic.

That being said, I actually read the article and since most of my friends could be called conservative Christians I approach this from that angle. I don't think that the nation is currently at risk of being overthrown by a theocracy, but I can see where the potential exists.

Quote :

"This image of Christ as warrior is appealing to many within the movement. The loss of manufacturing jobs, lack of affordable health care, negligible opportunities for education and poor job security has left many millions of Americans locked out. This ideology is attractive because it offers them the hope of power and revenge. It sanctifies their rage. It stokes the paranoia about the outside world"

I think this paragraph nicely sums up part of the attraction of the revival of the Christian right. Like every organization, it consists of many types of people at different levels from "true believers" to those simply looking for answers. I don't think the vast majority of those involved are evil; more accurately, they feel like they're being left behind by globalization and this offers some fashion of hope. Nazism arose from the same feelings of cultural defeat and alienation; it gave its adherents a sense of pride and belonging that they could not find elsewhere.

For what its worth, I think that both the shrill over-reaction of hardcore secular leftists to religion and the utter disdain with which they treat the opinions and beliefs of those who could be classified as conservative Christians does nothing but energize the cC base and further alienate those who are only yet on its margins. The way away from a fascist state is not to further condemn those already feeling marginalized, but to present an alternative message of hope to those with only one foot in the ring, and hope that by drawing them out one at a time (which will, in and of itself, discredit the leaders) will lead away from the possibility of a fascist Christian state.

Kill the body and the head will die.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 3:09 PM. Reason : On another note, an interesting article from Geo. Will: http://tinyurl.com/yo8em3]

2/21/2007 3:06:24 PM

Quote :

"Starting point, my ass. Faith has no place in logic."

What faith? To a christian, the existance of god is self evident and truth.

2/21/2007 3:11:36 PM

^exactly. I'm interested to hear Bridget's definition of logic.

2/21/2007 3:21:18 PM

Quote :

"To a christian, the existance of god is self evident and truth."

But impossible to prove (or dis-prove) and thus a poor starting place for a system of governance.

2/21/2007 3:53:43 PM

^Yes, but people often use the argument "There is evidence supporting evolution, and it hasn't been disproven, so it's obviously true." Now, I'm not even going to begin the evolution debate, but the important thing is that science and religion (and their relation to politics) are not as different as some may like to think.

2/21/2007 3:57:29 PM

Emperical, observable, and verifiable evidence exists that lends great creedence to the concept of evoluton through natural selection and little evidence exists against it. For the time being, it is the best answer we've got so we go with it. The same cannot be said for the existence of God.

In fairness, it is a poor comparison. G-d is, if s/he exists, quite unknowable except through revealed religious texts. Each sect jealously guards its own version as the true light and, by virtue of its being sacred, is loath to critically examine it as a text. There is no collective peer evaluation beween denominations, creeds, sects, atheists, agnostics and the community as a whole. Religion demands faith, science demands evidence.

As I pointed out earlier, faith in the human mind is central to all of this, so we're making a big leap from the start if you ask me.

2/21/2007 4:05:02 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: What faith? To a christian, the existance of god is self evident and truth."

The key word here is self-evident.

You can't make a claim with no evidence, call that claim self-evident, and then use it to justify shit.

Maybe I'm not deep enough for this conversation?

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: Faith in the human mind is the basis of all logic."

It tooke me a second, but I'm following. That's interesting. I would agree.

I'm desperately not trying to take out the profundity of it by making the obvious dumbass statement about it, but fuck it...we are getting closer to understanding how the brain and the mind works; of course, as we get closer, we get further away, as well.

2/21/2007 9:12:21 PM

I don't remember posting in this thread at all, but I'll run with it.

Quote :

"1) I didn't read the article, and I'm going to be a bitch."

No, I didn't, but I'm also not talking about the article, I'm talking about things you've said in this thread. Things like "If you use the Bible to support your opinions you're not interested in rational thought."

Quote :

"One group can't justify wanting to kill homosexuals by saying "Oh, well, you're trying to push your own morals with your whole 'clean drinking water' thing.""

I swear on my family's eventual grave I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Quote :

"Absolute loons are moving in on political power, and you're defending them just cause you're embarassed that they're associated with your party."

Don't be stupid. Absolute loons are always moving in on political power, throughout history. Any time one group wins and another loses, the pack of loons closest to the winning group is moving in on power. If Al Gore had won the election there would be people screaming that Greenpeace and PETA were right on the verge of owning the federal government, and you'd be doing the exact same thing I am because it's stupid to equate your political opposites with total fringe lunatics.

Yeah, religious -- possibly overly religious -- people have a large amount of power in this country. It's happened a half-dozen times before. For Pete's sake, it's the cycle we go through, we always have gone through, and this particular peak of religiosity is way, way under what previous peaks have consistently been.

Quote :

"And even though they are heavily represented in politics, they actually feel disenfranchised (Homos and Mexicans are everywhere! What is happening to our America?!?!). "

Any group that can make even the feeblest grasp on "playing the victim" will do so, because sympathy works. This trend is, in fact, ubiquitous among groups at all times.

Quote :

"And, no, I will not pretend to respect the arguments of these people."

And that is precisely why you and people like you will drag this particular prominence of "fundamentalist Christianity" on longer than it has to go. The best way to stand up for what you think is right -- and by that I mean, promote it in any meaningful way whatsoever -- is to just suck it up and lie, if you have to. Nothing is going to make these people fight you more rabidly than doing what you're doing now.

2/21/2007 9:51:31 PM

^ Thats a pretty good point, its exactly that kind of percieved alienation thats driving the movement.

2/22/2007 6:26:19 AM

AHA.

Good thread.

I really tried to get something exciting happening and totally failed.

5/5/2007 4:04:31 AM

Quote :

"And that is precisely why you and people like you will drag this particular prominence of "fundamentalist Christianity" on longer than it has to go. The best way to stand up for what you think is right -- and by that I mean, promote it in any meaningful way whatsoever -- is to just suck it up and lie, if you have to. Nothing is going to make these people fight you more rabidly than doing what you're doing now. "

You realize that if you accept this, you're saying a lot of negative things about our society and politics?

5/5/2007 1:08:15 PM

i love it when people insult an entire demographic and then wonder why they can't win elections.

5/6/2007 2:30:48 AM

So which demographic did the republicans insult in the last election?

5/6/2007 3:23:12 AM

Probably the demographic that doesn't want us in Iraq.

5/7/2007 8:15:34 AM

anything that links politics to religion is inherently a bad thing because ruling with the power of religion is in a degree ruling with the power of God. therefore, what the leader says you must accept, or you are going against God. it happens all the time in many different places, and that is the state of evangelism in america.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2007 10:18:41 AM

How many political leaders are "true believers" (I think Geo. Bush is, unfortunately) and how many simply pander to their base?

5/7/2007 12:47:37 PM

^how exactly is being religious a bad thing

5/7/2007 1:16:36 PM

On the micro level, religion is a positive influence, but it demands faith in the unknowable over logical dissection of the observable. On the macro level, I wouldn't recommend the Bible or any other religious text as a guide for international policy decision-making advice.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 1:56 PM. Reason : f]

5/7/2007 1:56:08 PM

^^ When those idiots try and teach creationism in school.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : as science]

5/7/2007 1:57:26 PM

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=469336

5/7/2007 7:53:38 PM

i know. how dare they go in there and teach something that goes counter to YOUR religion. DAMN THEM TO HELL! nevermind that you do that to them every day

5/8/2007 12:01:14 AM