Ionolast Ionolast

More Dangerous Stupidity From the Religious Right

▼

More Dangerous Stupidity From the Religious Right

THIS is why I attack Christianity

from JoeUser Forums
Last night on Fox News' Heartland, John Kasich interviewed Senator Hank Erwin (R-Al.), starting with this written statement:

"New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness...it is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgement of God." - Weekly Newspaper Column 9/30/05.

Kasich: "Don't you think you're driving people away from religion? I know you're not trying to do that, but don't you think it has the opposite effect?"

Erwin: "It's according to what your heart is saying. If your heart is humble and you have the lord using a message to send along to America we need to wake up. Your heart will respond in humility saying, "Lord, whatever it takes, begin with me to do what's right.
If your heart is hard, you'll turn away. I can't define what men do, I can only say what God would be honored with."

He actually believes he can read God's mind.

He and anyone who agrees with him should do the world a favor and kill themselves.

No wonder the Ancient Romans threw Christians to the lions."
misc
25,061 views 58 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
As for deleting HC's comments and blacklisting him, I've also blacklisted aeryck and preacherman, which I have freely, openly and proudly admitted before. No one raises hell about that.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do what you wanna. - Frank Zappa

The people who Erwin feels God was justified in killing were not harming anyone except maybe themselves. I find it funny that Baker doesn't think Erwin is intolerant and dangerous, since Baker admits to being a sexual deviate.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And you aren't?"


Did you read the whole thing?

" And you are intolerant of people you feel are "dangerous." So? You're saying there something wrong with intolerance while being intolerant. In reality everyone is intolerant of some things. It's called being human."


The difference is some people are just intolerant, and others are wackos who think the world would be a better place without the people they differ with. One is admitedly intolerant. The other, well... is a little sick.

I honestly thought you were trying your hand at the absurd, and after reading it twice finally realized you probably didn't intend to seem twice as intolerant as the people you were talking about. Kind of sad...
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a very odd thread, to say the least. The comments that Senator Erwin made attibuting the devastation of Katrina to God's judgement, although distasteful (to me, anyway) do have a lot of Old Testament 'precedent' to them. Icon was clearly upset by this remark and suggests that anyone who agrees with this should "kill themselves". (This is unlikely to happen).

Icon in turn has been accused of being even more intolerant than the apparently intolerant people he is condemning (fairly in my view) - and here we have it the usual left/right, religious/secular hate fest doing its usual merry dance.

I have to say that, to an outsider, this is a very American problem. Not for the immediately apparent reason that there are more 'religious' people in the US than in, say, Europe, but because of the kind of religion that we are talking about. Try to imagine a prominent European christian (let's take the Pope as an example, or maybe Tony Blair) making a comment like Erwin's. It just wouldn't happen. (I'm assuming that Senator Erwin is a prominent American. I don't know)

America's religious right contains a lot of christians of a particular fundamentalist stamp, tending much more toward the Old Testamant rather than the New, much more into the idea of smiting the enemies of God, rather than turning the other cheek. Perhaps this is exactly the kind of robust and muscular religion needed by a frontier people who now find themselves masters of the world, but it is hard to reconcile it with the love, forbearance and forgiveness at the heart of the christian gospel.

Trying to understand the vehemence of the argument from the outside, I can only conclude that this rather harsh and spiritually immature version of the christian message in turn gives rise to a harsh and intolerant secular criticism in the manner of an 'equal and opposite reaction'. Another problem of course is that these spiritual views are immediately lazily equated with political positions (pro-christian = conservative, anti-christian = 'liberal'), so that even non-christian conservatives feel the need to pile in and 'defend' "christianity" (at least the type of christianity which has the largest overlap with conservative political views).

I would be interested in any christian on JU who could humbly and kindly explain to Icon that there are all kinds of christian viewpoints and that Senator Erwin's rather silly comments are not necessarily representative of the faith as a whole. As a non-believer I'm not in a position to do so myself, but I have enough respect for christianity to believe that at least one of you out there will have the patience to do so without getting aggressively defensive about the whole thing.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I would be interested in any christian on JU who could humbly and kindly explain to Icon that there are all kinds of christian viewpoints and that Senator Erwin's rather silly comments are not necessarily representative of the faith as a whole."


I'm just mulling over the usual reaction to such statements about non-CHristian religions. No offense intended, Chak, and I agree with what you are saying, but I get tired of "cultural sensitivity" only applying to those of media-friendly beliefs.

We understand that we have the responsibility to treat people of, say, fundamentalist Islamic beliefs in fair way. I can imagine the hell I would get if I were to say that fundamentalist Islamic people in the US that I differ with should all go kill themselves.

It's chic to say such things about fundamentalist Christians, though. It makes Icon feel all cool and smart, I guess. In reality, he's no different with a statement like that than someone who might wish all those "towel heads" would kill themselves.

I could sit here and debate the doctrine of the situation, but I don't think it merits it. I think it would be granting the original, hateful statement more validity than it is worth.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
No offense intended, Chak, and I agree with what you are saying...

None taken, and I agree with what you are saying Yes, it is chic to say such things about fundamentalist christians, and I think for two (main) reasons. One is that christianity is the religion of our culture; slagging off other faiths is a little more 'abstract' in the western context. Secondly, fundamentalist christians, whatever faults they have, don't usually go round killing their critics (they just wait for "god to sort them out" )
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
America's religious right contains a lot of christians of a particular fundamentalist stamp, tending much more toward the Old Testamant rather than the New, much more into the idea of smiting the enemies of God, rather than turning the other cheek.


Exactly. Jesus was supposed to have changed all that vengeful God stuff. Too many "Christians" ignore what Jesus said and embrace the Old Testament because they want justification for their hate.

This is why religion is dangerous. No one can ever completely understand it. Too many interpretations.

Stop being a sheep. You don't think you are? Are you not called His flock?

Think for yourselves. Stop being gullible, naive and superstitious. It's liberating. No more fear of what might happen after you die.

this rather harsh and spiritually immature version of the christian message in turn gives rise to a harsh and intolerant secular criticism in the manner of an 'equal and opposite reaction'.


Yeah. Payback's a bitch, isn't it?

I would be interested in any christian on JU who could humbly and kindly explain to Icon that there are all kinds of christian viewpoints and that Senator Erwin's rather silly comments are not necessarily representative of the faith as a whole.


Just wait. They all do it sooner or later, then they use the Old Testament to justify it. Then they're amazed that anyone could tell them they're wrong.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

And all he did was quote scripture.

She.  Unless she has undergone a sex change.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is why religion is dangerous.

Indeed, religion is dangerous. As is snowboarding and eating blowfish. But what I think you mean is that religion only ever has bad effects and that these are always truly awful.

Actually I have very little time for the 'religion is the cause of all the wars, divisions and troubles in this world' argument. Humans are the cause of all these things - but I won't attack humanism because of that. In our greed, hatred and folly we can, and often do, use anything, be it ever so sublime, for our own twisted purposes. Politics, professional sport and blogging can also go the same way.

Some people are truly surprised when religious people behave badly, but I really don't see why. Religious people are ultimately still people, just like everyone else. The good ones though are just trying a little harder to be better. It's as if these critics of christianity had a 'supernatural' expectation of christian goodness which has been disappointed somewhere along the way. An irony there.

Religion is really a name we give for a collection of culturally specific spiritual practices; good people make good religion, bad people make bad religion, except the bad - the idiots, the egotists, make the most noise, as empty vessels usually do.

It's a shame that Icon deleted HC's post. Those christians who are simply trying to live ordinary humble lives of compassion and service to others, open-minded enough to be admit when they are unsure of things, but clear enough about what matters to them and navigating to a steady moral compass will never make headlines. But to suppress their voice so that only the Erwin's of this world are heard is a deliberate distortion and an argument that relies on wilful distortion is already lost.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Indeed, religion is dangerous. As is snowboarding and eating blowfish. But what I think you mean is that religion only ever has bad effects and that these are always truly awful.


Snowboarding and eating blowfish don't control anyone's lives.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
"..equally disgusting if you had framed it thusly: "No wonder Aryan Christians slaughtered Jews wholescale" in regards to their ancestral behavior. (ie: they killed Christ.)"


Too true. I wonder how iconclast would react to someone who said "Those Jews should kill themselves and do the world a favor, no wonder Hitler killed so many of them..."
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Snowboarding and eating blowfish don't control anyone's lives.

You have never been snowboarding or willing to shell out $100 bucks for blowfish either I see.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Too true. I wonder how iconclast would react to someone who said "Those Jews should kill themselves and do the world a favor, no wonder Hitler killed so many of them..."


Maybe the last two sentences in the body of the article were made solely in anger, but Jewish is a race as well as a religion. Nazis wanted to wipe out an entire race, not just a religion.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

but Jewish is a race as well as a religion.

No it is not. Judaism transcends all races, just like Christians, Muslims and Buddhists do.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
No it is not. Judaism transcends all races, just like Christians, Muslims and Buddhists do.


But, but, but....if you keep saying that, we'll run out of reasons why our claim that Christians deserved to be thrown to lions wasn't bigoted.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
No it is not.


Then why do Jews have distinguishing physical characteristics?
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe the last two sentences in the body of the article were made solely in anger, but Jewish is a race as well as a religion. Nazis wanted to wipe out an entire race, not just a religion.


wrong.. Jewish is a racxe? how so? I am a semite, that is a race, arabs are semites too also the same race , differnet religions though.

Jews come from every race on the planet {MOST RACES}
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Crap I tried to edit the above post, semites are not a race.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Then why do Jews have distinguishing physical characteristics?

They dont.  But bigots try to assign them to them.

Did Sammy Davis Jr. Have those characteristics?  Just curious as to what characteristics you are referring to. 

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
#47 by Içonoçlast
Monday, October 10, 2005


No it is not.


Then why do Jews have distinguishing physical characteristics


we do??? In my life I have met japanese Jews, I am a turkish jew, I look nothing like a german Jew.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

we'll run out of reasons why our claim that Christians deserved to be thrown to lions wasn't bigoted.

There is always the last resort - there are some good christians, and some bad christians.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

I look nothing like a german Jew.

let me guess.  You dont have blond hair?

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Maybe the last two sentences in the body of the article were made solely in anger, but Jewish is a race as well as a religion."


MMkay,then. Let say someone said "Why don't all those homosexuals do the world a favor and kill themselves. No wonder Hitler killed so many of them." Is that better, since homosexuality isn't a race? Would that be more palatable to you? What about "those muslims?"

The teeny bit of self-reflection is appreciated, even though it didn't amount to anything. Keep whittling at your article and all you'll end up with is you railing at someone because of their religious beliefs. If this Senator acted on those beliefs in some way, then by all means give him (not the entire religion) hell. Until he proves himself to be "dangerous" how about giving him the benefit of the doubt.

This is akin to people who don't want anyone with a dedicated religious background to be supreme court justices. It might be "dangerous." I'm thinking that maybe we should judge people by their actions, and not their beliefs, and not lump hundreds of millions of people in with them when they say something we don't like, just because they base their religion on the same book.

That's what we are told to do with Muslims. How about giving Christians the same benefit?
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
53 by BakerStreet
Monday, October 10, 2005


Maybe the last two sentences in the body of the article were made solely in anger, but Jewish is a race as well as a religion."


MMkay,then. Let say someone said "Why don't all those homosexuals do the world a favor and kill themselves. No wonder Hitler killed so many of them." Is that better, since homosexuality isn't a race? Would that be more palatable to you? What about "those


cannot answer for Icon, but I have been jumped here more than once for including all democrats in a rant, when all I ment was liberals.

For me I try not to use to broad a brush.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Link

"The word Jew (Hebrew: éäåãé) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity; and often a combination of these attributes. This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of Jewish religion, please refer to Judaism.
Most Jews regard themselves as a people, members of a nation, descended from the ancient Israelites and those who joined their religion at various times and places."

Link

"An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source. Members of an ethnic group are often presumed to be culturally or biologically similar, although this is not in fact necessarily the case."