Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People
In my last post, I noted that Pajamas Media had asked me to write a piece on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments today at Columbia University that they “don’t have homosexuals” in his land.
To whet your appetitie, I’ll give you the first paragraphs and then encourage you to read the rest at Pajamas:
Today is a day when gay people of all political stripes should be united. On this day when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is all over the news, we should be standing tall and condemning this leader of one of the most anti-gay regimes on the planet.Leaders of gay groups rush to put out press releases when the highest court in a state rules that their state’s constitution does not require it to recognize same-sex unions. But, even with that ruling, gay couples can still live openly in Maryland. As they can in many other states which have refused to recognize gay marriage.
But, in Iran, not only are gay couples prevented from living together openly, they could be executed for expressing their feelings for same-sex intimacy. Perhaps it’s because his busy sentencing gay Iranians to death that Ahmadinejad claimed today that “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. . . . In Iranian we don’t have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.“
196 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Good article. I’m not holding my breath that the ‘gay leadership’ will come out with any condemnation soon. After all, he stated there are no homosexuals in Iran, so what’s the problem. You can’t execute people who aren’t there, unless of course you already executed them all.
Sure, DADT, DOMA and ENDA are important issues, but if the freest gay organizations in the world can’t stand up for their oppressed brothers and sisters in Iran, then please remind me, why do they exist?
Comment by Leah — September 24, 2007 @ 8:05 pm - September 24, 2007
Excellent post.
Our gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered in the Middle East by Islamic dictators and we’re arguing over name calling and inflicting virtual verbal wedgies on each other.
I hope that if the rope were tied around my neck, the outcry would be something better than watered down moral equivalency.
Obviously, we’ll all hang separately.
Comment by Vera Charles — September 24, 2007 @ 8:48 pm - September 24, 2007
Fantastic article, Dan. Well done!
Comment by John — September 24, 2007 @ 9:02 pm - September 24, 2007
Excellent post indeed.
-Michael
http://tedandmichael.com
Comment by Michael — September 24, 2007 @ 10:23 pm - September 24, 2007
It’s telling that the world’s biggest homophobe and anti-Semite comes to speak at Columbia U. and I get yet another email from HRC pissing and moaning about the need for ENDA.
The libs circle the wagon for this gap toothed asshole who kills those they claim to love. What’s up with that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 24, 2007 @ 11:12 pm - September 24, 2007
This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is, that homosexuality is “chosen” in “permissive” environments, so in his mind his tyranical repression naturally keeps it from occuring. To what degree our own Christian conservatives adopt their beloved Bible’s prescriptions (”…they shall be put to death”) to create an environment where its people do not “choose” “sin” depends on us, on if we let them. It’s great that you hate this fascist. But you’re fools for coddling up to our own fascists at home.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 12:14 am - September 25, 2007
“Yes, we should fault the president and his team for failing to repeal the pernicious Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell Policy preventing gays from serving openly in the military and should take the president to task for endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment.” …
Should we? According to whom and who is ‘we’?
“Gay people can disagree whether or not state courts should accord same-sex unions the same recognition they offer to different-sex couples who opt for marriage…”
Better, but then how does one reconcile the two statements?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 12:25 am - September 25, 2007
But you’re fools for coddling up to our own fascists at home.
Do us a favor, arturo, and start making it clear to people that your antireligious bigotry isn’t caused by your homosexuality; it’s a choice that you make to call religious people “fascists”.
By doing that, you’ll probably do more for gay rights than you could ever manage with your current hate rhetoric.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 12:34 am - September 25, 2007
If you think “antireligious bigotry” is inability to coddle those who will not denounce their Bible’s prescriptions to kill homosexuals (they shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”), than, my GayPatriot friend North Dallas Thirty, you are an anti-gay bigot.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 12:46 am - September 25, 2007
Requiring denunciation of one’s religious beliefs is something our ancestors left in England, arturo, and something which we wrote our constitution specifically to reject.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 1:05 am - September 25, 2007
I will not accept the belief that homosexuals “shall be put to death”. You will. Like the fascist ruler of Iran.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 1:11 am - September 25, 2007
And by the way, I have much good to say of religion, I’ve said it elsewhere. But when we’re talking about homosexuality, it deserves nothing but contempt.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 1:21 am - September 25, 2007
I will not accept the belief that homosexuals “shall be put to death”.
Then you intend to punish people for thinking.
That’s because, unfortunately for your argument, gays aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians — which means you have to make thinking something the same as doing it in order for your persecution complex to make any sense at all.
Personally, I prefer to wait until they act.
And your pathetic attempts to insist that you are not an antireligious bigot are belied by the facts that you call religious people “fascists” and scream that they all wish to murder gays. Your screaming insistence that homosexuality and religion are incompatible is nothing but a pathetic act of cowardice meant to add a socially-acceptable veneer to your antireligious bigotry.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 2:08 am - September 25, 2007
It is not only in their thoughts that they wish their children be free of homosexual sin. It’s in the world where you and I live that they want their ideas played out. They ARE fascists in their beliefs. You need to understand that, not to “punish” them before they act, even if “punishment” obviously comes so easily to your mind. But because you won’t see the threat coming until they do act.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 3:20 am - September 25, 2007
I guess you were wrong about homosexuals not coming out against the president of Iran. Numerous articles on the web and on-the-ground incidents disprove your assertions that the homosexual left wouldn’t stand against him.
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet. Stop defending Christians because just as you argue that Democrats are no friend to homosexuals, Christians are also no friend to homosexuals. Christians are no better than Muslims and don’t bother trying to argue otherwise. 1500 years of history prove Christians are just as murderous and violent as any other religious zealots.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
Comment by fnln — September 25, 2007 @ 4:34 am - September 25, 2007
Numerous articles on the web and on-the-ground incidents disprove your assertions that the homosexual left wouldn’t stand against him.
Then you won’t mind sharing them all with us, would you?
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet.
Why wait for a theocracy? The liberals have succeded in handing us the most anti-gay laws out there without one.
Seems to me (and anybody with a lick of common sense) that what the “eeeevangelicals” should have done is pretend to give two shits about gays and convince mindless assholes among them that the liberals hate their guts. That way they could pass all the anti-gay legislation they want and the dumbasses would throw millions of dollars to them in gratitude. Hell, if that were the case, we’d have a constitutional ammendment and the POS “gay leadership” would be defending it to the death and daring anybody to touch it.
BTW, maybe you could explain why liberals defend theocracies elsewhere. And if you’re totally incapable of explaining that, perhaps you can explain your “what should be a secular government” crack.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 25, 2007 @ 6:24 am - September 25, 2007
I’m sorry, but equating the evangelical Christian position that homosexuality is wrong and shouldn’t be accomodated with the fundamentalist Islamic position that homosexuals should be executed doesn’t stack up. Neither is desirable of course, but one is plainly far worse. As for the assertion that Christians aren’t trying to put us to death because they “have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy,” I have to say that you’re full of nonsense. Coming from a highly religious area of Texas, I have lots of evangelical friends, and while most of them are honest enough to say they don’t approve of my homosexuality, they don’t let it stand in the way of our friendship, much less use it to advocate my execution. In fact, so far as I’m aware even the worst of the anti-gay evangelicals in our country- Roberston, Falwell, etc- have never advocated a “Final Solution” such as is practiced in many Islamic countries.
Comment by Sense — September 25, 2007 @ 9:17 am - September 25, 2007
15: I think having 155 members of the justice department who’ve graduated from Pat Robertson’s “law school” is a good step towards an “under the radar” infusion of ultra-theocratic attempts to use religion to set policy and law in this country.
As for Ahmadinejad; I am thrilled that he was given a forum for his psychotic comments in this country. To hear the hooting and cat-calling in response to his statements help to make it clear what a dangerous man this guy is.
Comment by Kevin — September 25, 2007 @ 9:21 am - September 25, 2007
Actually, Kev, there was mostly applause to his comments. The left applauds Ahmadinejad for pursuing nuclear weapons, denying the holocaust, threatening to wipe Israel off the map, hanging young girls who resist rape, sponsoring terror against civilians, and butchering U.S. soldiers. They only kluck their tongues when he says something impolitic about gays.
The values of the left are so f**ked up it’s beyond belief.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 9:27 am - September 25, 2007
Oh, and to save you the trouble of denying that the left supports Ahmadinnerjacket, I reiterate several recent posts on the the DailyKos (that website whose convention all leading Democrat presidential candidates went to kneel before) including the Jewish lesbian with a crush on Ahmadinnerjacket, the “Ahmadinnerjacket sounds like a reasonable man” post, the poll where 36% of Kostards wish Dinnerjacket were president instead of Bush, Kostard offense that Lee Bollinger would offend Dinnerjacket by challenging his human rights record …
And, once again, there was that round of cheers and applause at the end of his lecture…
Despite how the apologists spin, love for this brutal tyrant is very much part of the mainstream left.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 9:33 am - September 25, 2007
ThatGayConservative, I think you’re a prophet!
Hell, if that were the case, we’d have a constitutional ammendment and the POS “gay leadership” would be defending it to the death and daring anybody to touch it.
And lo and behold… it is on the horizon.
http://www.malcontent.biz/blog/?p=2545
Comment by DoDoGuRu — September 25, 2007 @ 9:39 am - September 25, 2007
Leviticus is Old Testament and foundational to Jewish law. It is incorporated in the Torah and is one of the five books of Moses. All of this is pre-Christian. If one is going to go on a rant about any part of Leviticus, one must necessarily include the Jews and the Catholics as well as the Christians.
It is convenient for any demogoguer to pull a statement and hang the entire body of the work on it.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are complex works that have stirred debate and controversy since forever. According to Leviticus, I live in sin because I willingly, openly and enthusiastically munch on shrimp and lobster. My wife has never sacrificed a dove, hence she is a sinner, as well.
The official Old Testament view is that man with man is a sideshow to the purpose of sex which is to be fruitful and multiply. The Old Testament is complete with reports of old geezers who get young women pregnant because the older women ran out of reproductive steam.
This idea that we are a nation of “true believers” just waiting to get enough of Pat Robertson’s law school grads into the Justice Department is farce at its most ridiculous. Apparently, non-believers can not see the difference between a religion that preaches the Golden Rule (Christianity) and one that has nothing resembling the Golden Rule (Islam.)
Homosexuality is a subject of religious doctrine within Christianity. For most Christians, it falls under the category of “hate the sin but love the sinner.” Certainly there are some few “Cretan Christians” who take a murdering stand on the topic. If the homosexual would not be willing or able to defend himself against such “Christians” he will find an overwhelming majority of Christians who will come to his aid. It is the Christian thing to do.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 25, 2007 @ 10:19 am - September 25, 2007
GayPatriot Heliotrope, when I open up the Bible, Leviticus is still there. Nowhere in the New Testament is it denounced as evil, as a mistake, and not as the word of God. If the Gay Bible were to say “and heterosexuals shall be made to breed and be put to death” I would denounce it without qualifications. That in the modern West Christianists have not been allowed to establish laws that their Bible prescribes for a society best cleared of sin is no glory to them.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 10:57 am - September 25, 2007
I can’t believe I’m having this discussion in a “pro-gay” website with gays or “friends-of-gays”. I’ve called on Christians on their Christian websites to denounce their Bible’s passage that calls for homosexuals to “be put to death” and they never do. But for homosexuals to not do so is unbelievable.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 11:11 am - September 25, 2007
‘It is convenient for any demogoguer to pull a statement and hang the entire body of the work on it.’
Then, just a few paragraphs later:
‘This idea that we are a nation of “true believers” just waiting to get enough of Pat Robertson’s law school grads into the Justice Department is farce at its most ridiculous. Apparently, non-believers can not see the difference between a religion that preaches the Golden Rule (Christianity) and one that has nothing resembling the Golden Rule (Islam.)‘
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 11:23 am - September 25, 2007
Unbelievable!
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am - September 25, 2007
arturo, ah another lower caser, why am I not surprised.
Can you not see the difference between words and actions? Yes my Bible, the Jewish Bible does state the a man who lies with another man as with a woman , shall die. Those are harsh words, but they are words.
What is happening in Iran today are actions, real homosexuals being brutally beaten and executed.
So you sit here and whine and complain, about what if? There have been many periods in history when Christianity held political as well as religious power - and despite people being hung for all kinds of offenses, homosexuality wasn’t one of them.
On the other hand, they are happening right now in many Islamic countries, notably Iran.
You are only concerned about what might happen in your sick mind if Christians gain political control. You are completely unwilling to stand up and condemn those who are actively doing so right now. I just hope no Iranian homosexual is reading your comments right now. How depressed they must be, not only to have to hide in order to save their lives. But to have American gays, the freest gays on earth, complain about ‘what ifs’, and not even stand up for their brothers overseas.
People like you disgust me.
Comment by Leah — September 25, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - September 25, 2007
When Christians counsel against homosexuality, it is most often in a spirit of, “you have to turn away from that lifestyle, or you will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Understood from that perspective, it’s a very loving expression of faith to tell someone whom one perceives as a sinner to turn away from sin. It’s a very different thing from stoning homosexuals, hanging them, crushing them under heavy rocks, or drowning them in sewage… despite the efforts of some to draw equivalence.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm - September 25, 2007
Now now, arturo. Watch the mock-outrage!
Real “Unbelievable” was that time I asked if you were (1) out of the closet, and (2) avoiding really nasty behaviors like restroom cruising or spreading HIV on purpose, and you refused to answer. (Even though I had carefully answered a comparable question from you, first.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - September 25, 2007
V at #28: I don’t think it’s “loving”, so much as “controlling”… but your point is well-taken: There is a huge moral difference between people who insult you a little by misquoting and ancient book, and people who do really put you and your brethren to death.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - September 25, 2007
Leah, saying “You are completely unwilling to stand up and condemn those who are actively doing so right now” after reading my comments on this very thread calling the Iranian tyrant a fascist can only mean you are dillusional or a liar.
No spaces ILoveCapitalism, you’re a joke.
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 25, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - September 25, 2007
But because you won’t see the threat coming until they do act.
That’s right; I, unlike you, do not need to invent things to suit a persecution complex.
You are an antireligious bigot, arturo.
Your friend Kevin who screams that people should be discriminated against because of where they went to school and their religious beliefs is an antireligious bigot.
And your friend fnln who mirrors your words about how Christians are all murderers is also an antireligious bigot.
Why does being homosexual make you an antireligious bigot, kevin, arturo, and fnln?
Since you insist that homosexuals are automatically antireligious bigots and you demand discrimination against people based on their religious beliefs — which is a crime under our Federal constitution — why do they deserve any sort of protections whatsoever?
Answer me, bigots.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 12:59 pm - September 25, 2007
Hahahahahahaha…. arturo, you’re pretty funny…. Oh. You’re serious????
I too have some issues with organized religions, and with some specific written doctrines of most religions. Some of it is quite silly when you think about it. Can’t eat pork or shrimp? Must pray everyday at dusk and dawn. Can’t work on Sundays…. oh wait, I like that one. Anyway, that being said, even those Christians who state to believe in the literal word of the bible do not, and could not, survive in the modern world if they truly did so. Modern Christian societies have learned the hard way that the laws of God and the laws of man must be separate in order for both to remain healthy. That was part of the lesson of the reformation, and that is why Islamic extremist fight against modernity. How many of the current tyrannies existing today are ruled by explicit Christian dictates, where civil law is predicated exclusively on biblical law (and, no, the Vatican and Bush administration doesn’t count)? There are none because the church has learned it doesn’t work. Christianity is not so in love with the “Word Of God” that they don’t recognize killing gays or adulterous women is inherently wrong, even though it is commanded to do so in the good book. Even scum like the vile Rev. Fred Phelps knows this. The bible should go through another canonization to cast off those bits that are no longer relevant to modern man. It won’t happen of coarse, but given a choice between a religion that ignores the most vile prescriptions in it’s written texts, and one that executes it to the letter, I’ll choose to have the former, thank you very much.
PS. Notice there is no ad-hominem aimed toward you on a personal level. It’s not my style.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 25, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - September 25, 2007
Let’s see how many more names the Non-Answering arturo can screech. He is on a roll
I was going to say, note how the subject has been changed from “Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People”. But, it hasn’t. We’re witnessing the flailing of some who would prefer not to have a spotlight on “Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People”; perhaps because of what it might mean for them or their politics? In that sense, the subject remains the subject.
I will briefly answer this:
That, arturo, is because there is this later part of the Bible, you see, called the New Testament or Christian Testament by some, that already negated those (very few) passages, along with many similar Levitical death penalties. You might want to learn a little Christianity, before you engage with Christians. They probably don’t have the heart to tell you you’re being a complete ignoramus, in terms of what you just screeched at them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 1:37 pm - September 25, 2007
Oh, by the way, Israel is not only not killing homosexuals, but allowing gay pride parades in Jerusalem, the holiest city in the world. You’d think that a nation whose majority believes in the Old Testament would be the last place that would happen.
Comment by Attmay — September 25, 2007 @ 1:39 pm - September 25, 2007
[...] Patriot has a great post with many other links on the [...]
Pingback by Keith D. Milby :: blog » Blog Archive » The Reason Iran Has No Gays — September 25, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - September 25, 2007
They probably don’t have the heart to tell you you’re being a complete ignoramus, in terms of what you just screeched at them.
It’s more on the order of them realizing that arturo’s psyche is dependent on antireligious bigotry. He literally has nothing and no one to blame unless he can blame the Christians; he’d have to look at himself and his own behavior, and THAT ain’t happening.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - September 25, 2007
arturo’s comments have elicited responses that only confirm stereotypes applied to both the religious and those on the right, buttressing such bumperstickers as Hate is not a Family Value and Jesus, Save Me from Your Followers. These, obviously, are not created in a vacuum, yet I’m sure some of you find yourselves in a fit of apoplexy when you see these and others on bumpers and elsewhere.
Perhaps an actual scriptural quotation is timely.
From Luke 6:
“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.”
But I’m sure you will sit back and smile, telling yourself that you’re just a sinner and that giving your tiny egos a stroke or two supersedes any eternal consideration. When one can categorize a deliberate sin as merely ‘falling short’, then why bother trying?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - September 25, 2007
Reading the comments posted here, I find no evidence to support this assertion.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - September 25, 2007
HardHobbit - Whom are you addressing? And specifically in response to what? And in expectation that they (whoever they are) have what type of personal religious belief?
You’re going to have to be more specific, if your words are to signify anything. (vs. just being self-congratulation / moral masturbation in a conversation you’re holding with yourself) Thanks in advance.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - September 25, 2007
Great post. Ahmedinajad violates every code of a free civil society. His Iranian government executes gays. We will not be silent!
Comment by C. Siegel — September 25, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - September 25, 2007
How come when someone criticizes Christianity, it turns into a which religion is better contest?
Christianity has major flaws and fanatical supporters who exploit those flaws and is open to criticism. So does every other religion. Much of the “Never Criticize MY Religion” folks seem to be arguing over who has a bigger a plank in one’s eye.
Instead why don’t we criticize both Iran AND the Saudis while focusing on their governments not their religion.
Both regimes treat homosexuality as punishable by death.
Neither are democracies, both are dictatorships, both are repressive and both have citizens who have killed Americans.
Yet nobody howls when our prez holds their King’s hand…
Comment by gil — September 25, 2007 @ 3:12 pm - September 25, 2007
Until you commented, no one had done so.
Such as?
So, please cite the scripture that says no one may ever criticize anyone else? I guess Jesus Christ should never have chased those money-changers out of the temple, nor should Moses have criticized the Israelites for making sacrifices unto Baal.
And who here is giving the Saudis a pass? Please cite by link to specific comments.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - September 25, 2007
These, obviously, are not created in a vacuum, yet I’m sure some of you find yourselves in a fit of apoplexy when you see these and others on bumpers and elsewhere.
Not really.
Because we know that these same people who, like arturo, are whining and screaming about “hate”, are also pushing antireligious bigotry and demanding that, in violation of the Constitution, Christians be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.
Perhaps, HardHobbit, if you were more familiar with Scripture, you would know that Christians are very well aware of evil people using selective quotation to trick and manipulate Christians into doing something wrong, as is so well-demonstrated in Matthew 4. But, as we are told later in 1 John 4, we are to test the spirits — because any one who shows up claiming to quote God, but that refuses to acknowledge God and Christ is a false one, whose interpretations and words need not be obeyed.
Such as yours.
Now go take your place with the rest of the antireligious bigots and hypocrites, HardHobbit.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - September 25, 2007
Before Scott Beauchamp’s biggest fan squirms out of this, let me redirect. I don’t see anyone denying that there are misguided extremists who claim to be Christians. However, the left places the fanatical extremism of Islam (which says all gays are to be butchered) on an equivalent plane with Christians who oppose redefining marriage.
Now, if Fred Phelps and his ilk had control of the government and a vast army of morality police to carry out his edicts, *then* he would be equivalent to Ahmadinnerjacket. Instead, he is regarded by most all of Christendom as a sideshow freak, as is right and proper.
Only an idiot would fail to see the difference.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - September 25, 2007
Or someone who, like gil, is trying to lend legitimacy to Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 3:50 pm - September 25, 2007
Ah, feel the hate. arturo is an anti-religious bigot for pointing to a passage in Leviticus and its inconsistency with religious homosexuals, this blog, etc.. I’m an anti-religious bigot (and a false spirit, my my!) for pointing to a passage in Luke that describes how believers should act in the face of spite, contrasting Christ’s words with the behavior of this thread’s Christian participants. (Never mind that this doesn’t apply to these good Christians when they question the contents of another religious text such as the Koran.) arturo has a ’sick mind’, this courtesy of our Jewish participant. And our Mormon now hurls ‘idiot’. And so it goes.
So here’s how it works, according to the participants in this thread: A non-believer cannot possibly understand religion (because no matter how they got to the point of non-belief, it cannot be any other way) and thus has no basis to criticize, much less point out the inconsistencies between a religion’s texts and the behavior of its adherents. Moreover, anyone who tries to do so is categorized as an anti-religious bigot and a hypocrite (although as a non-believer, I don’t claim to adhere to the religion in question, so my ‘hypocrisy’ is awfully suspect). And the name-calling adds just the right loving, charitable, Christ-like touch, I must say.
Do I have it right? Perhaps if I try ever so hard, I too might understand how you can treat another as you have and then I can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 4:15 pm - September 25, 2007
I feel so left out
And in truth, I don’t really have a horse in this race - being neither particularly religious nor anti-religious at this time in my life (and notwithstanding my background in both modes of being).
Let me note anyway that HardHobbit has not characterized the thread accurately. And let me reiterate my earlier point to arturo; that if Christians don’t repudiate the Levitical death penalties on adultery, bad ritual actions, homosexuality, etc., it’s probably because the Bible itself already does so for them, and (as Christians) perhaps they don’t have the heart to tell arturo his screeching is out of place.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 4:39 pm - September 25, 2007
A non-believer cannot possibly understand religion (because no matter how they got to the point of non-belief, it cannot be any other way) and thus has no basis to criticize, much less point out the inconsistencies between a religion’s texts and the behavior of its adherents.
The problem here, HardHobbit, is that you and your fellow bigots accuse Christians of all being fascists who want to murder gays and who should be denied jobs and opportunities because of their religious beliefs.
The hypocrisy comes in when you not only practice hate and discrimination, but do so in clear violation of the Constitution which you claim to support.
Do I have it right? Perhaps if I try ever so hard, I too might understand how you can treat another as you have and then I can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
It will never happen.
Your antireligious bigotry is too fundamental to your worldview. In order for you to accept Christianity, you would have to embrace reality and admit that the rhetoric about all Christians being murderous fascists like arturo spouts is untrue.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 5:00 pm - September 25, 2007
Let me note anyway that HardHobbit has not characterized the thread accurately.
What else is new?
More fundamentally, in order to receive Christ, you have to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. I don’t see how one can do that if one is supremely invested in one’s own egotism.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - September 25, 2007
I should never say never, though, V the K; far more miraculous things have happened than that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 6:10 pm - September 25, 2007
Americablog commented negatively on it (http://tinyurl.com/yose8j)
Pam’s House Blend commented on it (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3079)
HRC has posted an official release on it (http://www.hrc.org/7720.htm)
Human Rights Watch has posted an official release on this problem in the past. Looks like Dan got his wish…
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 25, 2007 @ 6:11 pm - September 25, 2007
The door is always open. One need only ask.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - September 25, 2007
The problem here, HardHobbit, is that you and your fellow bigots accuse Christians of all being fascists who want to murder gays and who should be denied jobs and opportunities because of their religious beliefs.
Here, I’m accused of accusing Christians of all being fascists [sic] who want to murder gays… Yet the accuser here cannot point to one statement I’ve ever made that would support such a ridiculous claim.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Does this phrase mean anything to anyone on this blog?
Once again, hypocrites do the greatest damage to an institution, especially religion. According to some, there is a special place in Hell for them. The only regret of my agnosticism is that I cannot believe this isn’t where those like you will spend eternity.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - September 25, 2007
However, the left places the fanatical extremism of Islam (which says all gays are to be butchered) on an equivalent plane with Christians who oppose redefining marriage.
Not quite! The left places the fanatical extremism of Islam (which says all gays are to be butchered) on a HIGHER PLANE than Christians who oppose redefining marriage.
So here’s how it works, according to the participants in this thread: A non-believer cannot possibly understand religion (because no matter how they got to the point of non-belief, it cannot be any other way) and thus has no basis to criticize, much less point out the inconsistencies between a religion’s texts and the behavior of its adherents. Moreover, anyone who tries to do so is categorized as an anti-religious bigot and a hypocrite (although as a non-believer, I don’t claim to adhere to the religion in question, so my ‘hypocrisy’ is awfully suspect). And the name-calling adds just the right loving, charitable, Christ-like touch, I must say.
Uhm, I am non-religious and have pointed out inconsistencies in scripture, yet I have neither been called an anti-religious bigot or a hypocrite, though I’m not sure how someone such as myself could be a hypocrite. Maybe, just maybe, the response you note in you comment is predicated by the writers tone, and whether the commenter has displayed at least some respect for those with whom you disagree.
Comment by sonicfrog — September 25, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - September 25, 2007
Your denial is amusing, HardHobbit, but pointless.
You chose to defend and support arturo and Kevin’s remarks; you can go down with them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 25, 2007 @ 8:35 pm - September 25, 2007
NDT, I considered pointing out that perhaps you do sometimes lump your opponents together a bit too readily, at least for my taste. But then I noticed this from HardHobbit:
And I realized, HH is much worse. He chooses to insult the integrity of, not you, not me, not V, or whomever his poor little brain is tied up in knots about this time; but everyone on this blog, even his hosts. I find that beyond pathetic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - September 25, 2007
And our one-trick-pony (the one that whips out “You’re an anti-religious bigot!” like some psychological tic) now claims I’m defending arturo and Kevin’s remarks. If he had read what I’ve actually written, he’d understand that I’ve done no such thing. (I’ve not referenced a ‘Kevin’ at all, in fact — but he has to bring in another name to give his falsehoods some additional weight.)*
So instead of confessing his lie, he concocts another as if the deity that resides in his mind cannot see him do so. He is evading the tenets of his own fantasy. This is doubly delusional. This is mental illness.
*My point, for those who have fewer issues, isn’t re. what arturo wrote, but what others (others who openly claim religious faith) wrote as responses. I wasn’t defending or supporting arturo’s statements at all, neither was I disagreeing with them. And my accuser cannot give a single example of my having done so.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 9:32 pm - September 25, 2007
More fundamentally, in order to receive Christ, you have to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
Does that include referring to others as idiots? Does that include lying about me, saying I harbor a ‘fierce anti-Mormon bigotry’? Does that include directing the f-word at those with whom you disagree? Or does your god’s open door policy simply whisk all your sins away each time you make the request, enabling you to go about hurting others as a mask for your inner pain?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 25, 2007 @ 9:40 pm - September 25, 2007
HardHobbit, your bitterness at some people may be complex, but the issues here are simple.
1) You treat fair answers to arturo with sarcasm, derision, and unfairness. (Only in your mind could that not amount to defending and supporting him.)
2) You fault and insult NDT, V, etc. for (allegedly) not meeting a standard that you pointedly reject.
3) With no small hypocrisy and irony in light of (1) and (2), you then claim that others lack integrity and have even borne false witness. My goodness.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 25, 2007 @ 10:50 pm - September 25, 2007
Actually, gillie, neither are dictatorships. Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy and Iran is an Islamic Republic.
Yeah that was weird. I can understand the kissing thing, but…
Anyhoo, simply put, Saudi Arabia is pretty moderate in comparison and very influential in the ME. Therefore, we sorta need them.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2007 @ 12:09 am - September 26, 2007
I’m sorry, but equating the evangelical Christian position that homosexuality is wrong and shouldn’t be accomodated with the fundamentalist Islamic position that homosexuals should be executed doesn’t stack up.
The fact is, that although both Muslim and Christian “holy” documents contain flagrantly anti-gay statements, governments that consist of mostly Muslims have more alarmingly antigay policies than do governments consisting mostly of Christians.
From a historical perspective, I don’t know whether it’s accurate to say that Christianity is a less-bigoted religion than Islam, but modern-day Christianity is not really comparable to modern-day Islam. I’d argue that this is not due to some inherent “superiority” of Christianity, but to the adaptations that Christians have made in the last few centuries. Christianity, as a faith, has modernized far more than Islam.
The secular influence on Christianity, and the influence of pluralistic nations on Christianity, have brought about major reform within the past few hundred years, both on an institutional level and at the individual level. What Islam needs is a dose of secularism, and the political pressure that comes from having to accomodate people with different fundamental beliefs.
Comment by Phil — September 26, 2007 @ 2:16 am - September 26, 2007
“How come when someone criticizes Christianity, it turns into a which religion is better contest?”
People think that Christianity is above criticism and cannot be criticized. Nonsense. It is just as worthy of criticism as the others, and as are all others.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
It is hard to believe that some people on here wrap themselves around their evangelical friends to protect them from the evil secularists. (LOL) I wonder if they realize that those they’re protecting and defending are the same ones that go into the churches to listen to preachers rail against homosexuality and constantly hope for conversions to heterosexuality.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 4:46 am - September 26, 2007
For starters, the proof required by ThatGayConservativeOnThePodunkPerch can be found in comment 52…and that proof is just from blogs.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 4:50 am - September 26, 2007
#64
I’m impressed. HRC and AmericaBlog got off their asses and threw us a bone with one paragraph or less. How nice. Pam had a bit more, but not much. Oh well. Wouldn’t want Ahmadinejad to think the libs don’t appreciate him. We get ass loads about how rotten gays are supposedly treated in the US, and a brief aside about gays elswhere who are actually DYING.
I don’t know about y’all, but I feel all warm and fuzzy inside that these “gay leaders” deign to favor us with a soundbite.
Thank you all for your arrogance and narcissism.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2007 @ 6:16 am - September 26, 2007
#64
Wow. A paragraph each.
How nice of them to dirty their manicures. Guess they ran out of vermouth?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2007 @ 6:19 am - September 26, 2007
Re: #63 fnln:
Bitter, Party of One? Your table is ready.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 7:29 am - September 26, 2007
A publication from the church I belong to addresses same-sex attraction this way:
So, where’s the hate?
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 8:55 am - September 26, 2007
This, on the other hand, is just plain obnoxious.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 10:11 am - September 26, 2007
Apparently, it is this concept that is most difficult for members of this blog to grasp: One who doesn’t subscribe to a particular codified set of beliefs has every right (and in many contexts, a moral obligation) to point out where that set’s subscribers deliberately stray.
Religions are a kind of philosophy. They ostensibly teach values, morals, ethics, principles of thought and behavior, the hierarchies of spirit, body, mind, and emotion. In fact, secular (intellect-based rather than faith-based) philosophies spring from the examples of world religions.
One doesn’t need to be a socialist in order to point out where a socialist is inconsistent with his stated beliefs. Moreover, one doesn’t even need to subscribe to the principle in question (the value transgressed by the hypocrite) to recognize a particular hypocrisy, i.e. one doesn’t need to subscribe to the idea of state-run health care to point out the hypocrisy of one who has an exemption from standing in line for the health rations suffered by all others who’ve had this Chosen One’s system foisted upon them.
But one can subscribe to that trangressed value while not subscribing to the entire philosophy and still be perfectly consistent in pointing out another’s transgressive hypocrisy. Philosophies, religions, belief systems overlap and not one has a complete moral monopoly. For example, a California environmentalist might help write legislation banning cutting down redwood trees. A fellow citizen has every right and obligation to point out the hypocrisy of that same environmentalist’s adding a redwood deck to his luxury home (after the law was enacted and the price of redwood lumber dropped to pennies per linear foot). That citizen needn’t be an environmentalist to have agreed with the legislation, but all that’s required of him in order to point out the hypocrisy involved is common sense.
So no, I don’t need to be a Muslim in order to point to various passages of the Koran and pose questions, point out hypocrisy. (In fact, my problem with Islamists is that they aren’t hypocritical enough.) I don’t need to be a Christian to point out where several members of this blog routinely treat others like garbage when certain points of faith such as passages in the Bible are called into question, questioned by either believers or non-believers.
When a person proclaims their beliefs publicly, they do so at their own peril (if criticism must be deemed a peril). Although I am an agnostic, I come from a Christian background, so although I don’t consider myself particularly knowledgeable in these matters, I’m not completely ignorant. From my background, a good Christian response would be:
“Hobbit, I’m sorry I have offended you and anyone else and that you consider me a religious hypocrite. Sometimes I think that Christianity is constantly under attack and so I let my emotions get the best of me when I detect an anti-Christian bias. I need to learn to be more detached in my defense of my faith and I want you and everyone here to know that as publicly as I’ve proclaimed my faith, I also proclaim my intention to behave more lovingly toward those I perceive to be Christ’s detractors. It is as He would have me believe and behave. Forgive me. I promise to try to behave differently and I welcome your encouragement, but please remember that I’m a work in progress. It would be a great joy to me if I could have some small part in winning your respect for my faith.”
Or something like that. (Does it ever occur to these people that I might be more than willing to meet them more than halfway?) Instead, I get “You’re an anti-Christian bigot…”, lies, and other such crap, no analysis, no proof, just reaction from an unthinking, uncaring, rather un-Christian blowhard. Again, he and his cohorts never consider that they just might be part of the reason an anti-Christian bias exists with some. Who can take a faith seriously when its adherents do not?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 12:01 pm - September 26, 2007
sonicfrog, sorry — I don’t mean to ignore you, but have wondered what you meant by your comment:
Maybe, just maybe, the response you note in you comment is predicated by the writers tone, and whether the commenter has displayed at least some respect for those with whom you disagree.
Before responding, would you clarify a bit for me? Thanks for your civility, by the way.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 12:10 pm - September 26, 2007
#66, how long are blog entries and press releases supposed to be? So now it’s not just did they comment on it, but did they do so in book or treatise form? My how the goal posts keep shifting…
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 26, 2007 @ 12:30 pm - September 26, 2007
#70 HH
True, but that’s not what you’re doing.
What you’re doing in effect, or to use the analogy more accurately, is writing bitter comment after comment alleging “You’re not socialist enough!!! You’re a failure, as a socialist and as a human being! I should be a socialist, but I’m not, because of you!” Different category.
In Hypocrite-land, or the land of Savaronolas-Who-Pretend-Not-To-Be: Yes.
And note that “deliberately” is a God-like attribution of motive, on your part. Hypocritical, in light of your earlier complaints alleging that others do so too much.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 26, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - September 26, 2007
The ironic part is, in his own mind, HH believes he is making the case for the superiority of his own brand of secular agnosticism. In fact, everything he posts demonstrates how intolerant his belief system is of others, and how utterly incapable he is of self-examination.
Perhaps, in his belief system, there is nothing requiring him to tend to the beam in his own eye before pointing out the specks in the eyes of others.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 12:49 pm - September 26, 2007
And I love his wild transitions between (a) pointing out that name-calling isn’t Christian, (b) engaging in name-calling, and (c) trying to larn you some Christianity.
I think the difference I’m noticing, is the difference between *noticing* and *preaching*. The difference between noticing that someone may not be living up to his beliefs (allegedly - Not saying HH is right, V), vs. actively preaching to him beliefs that the preacher rejects for himself.
HH wants a socialist analogy, so here it is. I don’t have to be a leftist to *notice* how funny it is that Michael Moore owns Halliburton stock. True. But I had better be a leftist, or at least a respectful leftist sympathizer, before I try to larn Michael Moore some leftism and preach to him *why he shouldn’t* own Halliburton stock. If I’m actually a capitalist and love Halliburton - WTF am I doing?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 26, 2007 @ 1:05 pm - September 26, 2007
Respect is exactly what is missing here.
I tend to agree with the maxim that it is not very often the case that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but more often that it has been found difficult and left untried.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 1:12 pm - September 26, 2007
One who doesn’t subscribe to a particular codified set of beliefs has every right (and in many contexts, a moral obligation) to point out where that set’s subscribers deliberately stray.
Then in that case, antigay groups have every right — and in fact, a moral obligation — to point out every single example of gays molesting children, using drugs, committing suicide, being treated for mental illness, eating sh*t/piss, and having unsafe sex at maximum volume and maximum criticism.
I don’t need to be a Christian to point out where several members of this blog routinely treat others like garbage when certain points of faith such as passages in the Bible are called into question, questioned by either believers or non-believers.
“Called into question”, indeed.
This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is
They ARE fascists in their beliefs.
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
I think having 155 members of the justice department who’ve graduated from Pat Robertson’s “law school” is a good step towards an “under the radar” infusion of ultra-theocratic attempts to use religion to set policy and law in this country.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
And thus is HardHobbit’s hypocrisy revealed in stunning detail — as what he supports and considers valid and good behavior is demonstrated.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - September 26, 2007
Ooooh, that one’s gonna leave a mark.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - September 26, 2007
#74
“The ironic part is, in his own mind, HH believes he is making the case for the superiority of his own brand of secular agnosticism. In fact, everything he posts demonstrates how intolerant his belief system is of others, and how utterly incapable he is of self-examination.
Perhaps, in his belief system, there is nothing requiring him to tend to the beam in his own eye before pointing out the specks in the eyes of others.”
Wrong and wrong.
I’m not making any case for the superiority of my life choices. I’m just pointing out when you don’t live up to yours while you proclaim them, all while complaining they aren’t respected.
According to Christianity, we are all sinners — no one is beyond reproach. But according to V the K, no one should ever point out another’s faults because we are all sinners; no one (especially a non-believer) should point out that a self-proclaimed believer is behaving in a manner completely at odds with the tenets of the faith to which he claims to adhere. By using the ‘plank in the eye’ analogy, he’s absolved (in his mind) of any wrongdoing because we’ve all got wood (so to speak). He thinks mine is bigger than his (so to speak) and I’m flattered, but I happen to think publicly lying about someone (which he has done to me) is pretty bad. But, since I’m a sinner, I have no right to point that out until I ‘have nothing in my eye’. Thus, he’s completely free to hurt as many people he likes and well, that’s just between he and his god.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - September 26, 2007
“Respect is exactly what is missing here.
I tend to agree with the maxim that it is not very often the case that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but more often that it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Yes, respect is missing, including self-respect. I don’t believe Mormonism to be Christianity, but whether that is or is not the case, you prove it a difficult road nearly every time you post a comment. You are a steady stream of hate.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - September 26, 2007
I don’t know how much louder I can denounce him. In my opinion we should be bringing him up on charges related to the 1979 kidnapping of American diplomatic personnel, not inviting him to speak.
Comment by Houndentenor — September 26, 2007 @ 2:24 pm - September 26, 2007
“Then in that case, antigay groups have every right — and in fact, a moral obligation — to point out every single example of gays molesting children, using drugs, committing suicide, being treated for mental illness, eating sh*t/piss, and having unsafe sex at maximum volume and maximum criticism.”
Notice how Dallas has to twist my words to his own ends (which is just one form of lying — as he did earlier in the thread when he claimed I was supporting and defending the statements of others, in particular a ‘Kevin’).
Here’s what I wrote:
“…and in many contexts, a moral obligation…”
And his translation:
“…and in fact, a moral obligation…”
A minor difference? Not quite, but either such subtlety is lost upon him or he’s very aware of what he’s doing. (I suspect the former rather than the latter.) One statement recognizes appropriateness of context, the other is a sweeping generalization which I didn’t make, but serves the purposes of a liar.
More particular to his example, I wish that gays themselves would point out examples “…of gays molesting children, using drugs…maximum volume…”, though I’m not sure what is meant by “…[at]…maximum criticism.” Gays need to get their own community in order and I don’t see why a criticism from any quarter, even an anti-gay group, be devalued merely due to the source. The validity of a message stands on its own, not on the merits or faults of its messenger.
But I doubt that every single example (to use his words) of this kind of depraved behavior Dallas describes need be made an example, for the purposes of conclusions to be drawn about a larger community. And of course that’s not what I stated nor what I implied. Yet another lie.
Then Dallas goes on to enlist the irresponsible words of another thread participant (fnln?) to attempt to link me to what another has written. Again, this is a form of lying. To wit:
“And thus is HardHobbit’s hypocrisy revealed in stunning detail — as what he supports and considers valid and good behavior is demonstrated.”
So Dallas states that the words of another participant are ones I support and consider valid, even though I have not referenced this participant nor his/her words.
But what can I expect from a phony Christian? Does he think his god isn’t taking notes?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 2:46 pm - September 26, 2007
Actually, I’ve never said anything of the kind.
Actually, I’m a steady stream of knocking down pseudo-intellectual shibboleths and cliched pedestrian thinking. I challenged anyone to show me the hate in my comment #68. No one could. I challenge HH to show a comment where I’ve expressed hate for anything other than, say, Islamo-Fascism.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 3:15 pm - September 26, 2007
Not counting the time I said illegal immigrants should be thrown under a nuclear-powered steamroller with rusty iron spikes driven into it.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - September 26, 2007
And on the subject of religious hypocrites, you know who I think is a HUGE hypocrite? Andrew Sullivan. He paints himself as a Catholic moralist, while simultaneously flaunting his refusal to follow the fundamental teachings of his church. He condones permissive recreational sex, recreational drug use, practices unsafe (bareback) sex, and recently said a reader’s (dumb) email persuaded him to come around on contraceptive baby-killing (abortion), too.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - September 26, 2007
What is permissive recreational sex? Is that sex for fun?
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 4:44 pm - September 26, 2007
One statement recognizes appropriateness of context, the other is a sweeping generalization which I didn’t make, but serves the purposes of a liar.
Yup, that left a mark.
I guess HH doesn’t want to explain his own unwillingness and inability to accept criticism from the religious right — as he demands all religious folk accept from him and his fellow leftist gays.
So Dallas states that the words of another participant are ones I support and consider valid, even though I have not referenced this participant nor his/her words.
Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.
Ah, feel the hate. arturo is an anti-religious bigot for pointing to a passage in Leviticus and its inconsistency with religious homosexuals, this blog, etc..
Which is why I specifically referenced two of his statements in my previous post.
This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is
They ARE fascists in their beliefs.
And now you’re caught in a flat-out lie, HardHobbit, because you claim you never supported any of the quotations I pointed out in my post.
Furthermore, we get to watch you whine about other people treating you like “garbage” when you blithely ignore what your fellows are saying about Christians:
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
I think having 155 members of the justice department who’ve graduated from Pat Robertson’s “law school” is a good step towards an “under the radar” infusion of ultra-theocratic attempts to use religion to set policy and law in this country.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 4:44 pm - September 26, 2007
It obviously made an impression. I imagine it hit close to home.
Most of us don’t really care if people take comfort in the false or want to waste their time wailing, crying, praying, ululating, or yelling to a non-existent god or set of gods as long as they keep religion out of government. However, the establishment clause and the exercise clause of the First Amendment are clear and religious people, in this country at least, need to remember them.
If you want to defend religious zealots, well that’s your right, but don’t expect me to get on board or go quietly along with such nonsense.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 5:12 pm - September 26, 2007
Most of us don’t really care if people take comfort in the false or want to waste their time wailing, crying, praying, ululating, or yelling to a non-existent god or set of gods as long as they keep religion out of government.
Which you, Kevin, and arturo interpret in the following fashion:
1) Requiring people to repudiate their religious beliefs before being allowed to hold government positions
2) Openly discriminating against those who attended religiously-sponsored schools
3) Claiming that all religious people are murdering fascists
4) Publicly mocking and denigrating the religious beliefs of others
5) Preventing people from exercising their religious beliefs in public under any circumstances
I think that list should make it obvious that you don’t have a clue about what the First Amendment says.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 5:20 pm - September 26, 2007
Maybe HH could also explain why Mormons aren’t Christians. What are the fourth and fifth words in the church’s proper name? The Church of _____ _____ of Latter Day Saints. Do you need to buy a vowel, HH?
Oh, and the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the government from creating a state religion, and not, as the ACLU interprets it, to require the complete sterilization of public space from any mention of the Christian faith. (State funded instruction in Islam and state-provided foot baths still okay, though.)
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 5:22 pm - September 26, 2007
Well, actually there can be no religious test either, but I am all for the ridicule and open hostility towards religion. Religion certainly has done enough damage over time and I repeat, religion deserves all of the ridicule that can possibly be heaped upon it.
I am quite clear on the first amendment and to use your own words as the case in point, isn’t establishing a state religion exactly what Christians in particular, although not exclusively, try to do? The answer is yes. How friendly will they be towards your homosexuality if they succeed in your endeavor. Not very friendly I suspect. When you put your head into the mouth of a lion, expect it to bite you.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 5:32 pm - September 26, 2007
HH, you also might want to use Google and look up the first, third, and fourth Articles of Faith that all Mormons swear by. Then, explain again how Mormons aren’t Christians.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 5:38 pm - September 26, 2007
That should read, “How friendly will they be towards your homosexuality if they succeed in their endeavor?”
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 5:41 pm - September 26, 2007
Complaining about the ACLU is simply veering into another avenue to avoid addressing many of the valid issues raised in this thread.
However, as for the example of the foot bath, why don’t you ask the local ACLU in that area (Michigan, I think?) to intervene? (I already know the answer to that question.)
The ACLU addresses constitutional issues and there may be one in your example. It is USUALLY (but not always) up to a wronged party to seek the help of the ACLU when a bill of rights infringement may be involved.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - September 26, 2007
They were asked to intervene, and they refused.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 5:54 pm - September 26, 2007
And isn’t wanting children to molest them exactly what gays in particular, although not exclusively, try to do, fnln? The answer, it seems, is yes.
Given that and examples like HIV/AIDS statistics, gays certainly have done enough damage over time and deserve all of the ridicule and open hostility that can possibly be heaped upon them.
And there’s your choice, fnln; acknowledge that and be consistent to your own rules, or object and demonstrate yourself to be a hypocritical bigot.
Those of us who do not automatically assume the worst about religion invariably have little trouble with religion assuming the worst about us, because there is no justification in our own actions for them to do so.
You, on the other hand……
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - September 26, 2007
91, and athiesm is soooo much better.
Now as to a lot of the rules of Leviticus. A lot of them make sense for people in the frakking desert.
1) Pork has to be cooked more thoroughly (I can never spell that right) than beef to be safe. (Try going to Outback and ordering a rare pork chop)
2) Mixing meat and milk products could contaminate both.
3) Anal sex can do more damamge than straight sex. I’ll point out that it specifically leaves lesbians out of the equasion. No antibiotics back then, or bandaids for that matter.
I do find it interesting that some people are so fearful to let others live and let live. arturo and “I’ll run away when outclassed” fnln come to mind.
Hard Hobbit, I’m sorry we disagree on the concept of religion in general and in practice it seems. I’ll make you the same deal I make my wiccan friends. You keep out of my religion, I’ll not burn you at the stake.
Ok, going to wait for my yummy pizza with beef sausage and cheese sit in my cotton undies and polyester shirt, and read some more writings of gay folk.
Comment by The Livewire — September 26, 2007 @ 6:25 pm - September 26, 2007
You must think so if you’ve written that is the case NDT.
You’re not hurting my feelings NDT.
I can live with your view of me as you can surely live with my view of you.
Stick and stones as they say.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 6:29 pm - September 26, 2007
So now I’m a ‘leftist gay’? Glad I’ve made such an impression here at GayPatriot that my politics are completely and utterly ignored/misunderstood/misrepresented. Yup, that’s me — a big, BIG leftist.
Dallas, liar that he is, references the words of fnln and attempts to link me with them, but which I neither quoted nor referenced. The only time I mentioned fnln’s name is when Dallas lied about it. So Dallas lies again in order to cover his tracks.
When I referred to arturo’s disagreement with Leviticus, I referred to the way arturo was treated in response to his statements. I didn’t defend his statements. Another Dallas lie for all to see.
“And now you’re caught in a flat-out lie, HardHobbit, because you claim you never supported any of the quotations I pointed out in my post.”
Go back and find where I supported arturo’s, Kevin’s, and fnln’s statements. Then provide quotes that prove it. You’ll find you can’t because they don’t exist. But you won’t because they prove you’re a liar and you know it.
Have you ever read the book People of the Lie? You might find it interesting and awfully revealing — a book that might actually cause you to stop and read what you write, hear what you say, and ask yourself is this actually who I am and what I’ve become?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 6:32 pm - September 26, 2007
I am running away? That’s interesting.
As I have said repeatedly, you can defend religious zealotry as much as you wish. I certainly don’t understand a homosexual’s desire to defend evangelicals’ beliefs about man on man, but hey…. You can pray and wail and have a good old time togther and any other nonsense you feel compelled to do. Have at it! Just keep it out of government. Simple. Rail on righties!!!!!
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 6:33 pm - September 26, 2007
You never struck me as a leftist HH and I consider myself to be falling left off the screen. LOL. I don’t think anyone could be right enough for Dallas and V the K. There’s probably a lot of wishful thinking there, but what do I know? Perhaps the conversion therapy didn’t work.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 6:35 pm - September 26, 2007
#101 fnln, yeah, the kind of black/white mentality that assumes that a disagreement with the manner in which a non-believer is treated automatically makes me a leftist is…so simplistic and seemingly all-too-common (I’ve found) amongst religious people.
I’m not anti-religion. I was a believer for many years and knew and know many good people of faith. In fact, pointing out where believers are inconsistent with their faiths strengthens the faiths, not weakens them. Faiths and their adherents should be tested, just as God ostensibly tests them. The Bible states that God prefers the hot and the cold, but that the lukewarm shall be spat out. Dallas and V the K (and a few others here) are vehemently lukewarm and the epitome of religiosity, not religion.
And fnln, thanks for the civility with me. When I state that I’ve never supported or defended your statements, I mean that as simple fact, not as a slam against you or against anything you’ve written here.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 6:51 pm - September 26, 2007
And I should add that I’m a libertarian/conservative. Small government, only interact with other nations for purposes of mutual wealth and cultural interest except when war is absolutely necessary, social issues are best decided by adult individuals where fraud and force are not involved, etc. Government is best when the service in question simply cannot be provided efficiently and effectively by individuals. Government of laws, not of men.
And all that jazz.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - September 26, 2007
Hmm. There should be a comment prior to the above. I’ll wait a bit and repost, if necessary.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - September 26, 2007
When I referred to arturo’s disagreement with Leviticus, I referred to the way arturo was treated in response to his statements. I didn’t defend his statements.
So in other words, even though you didn’t agree with arturo, you used his statements as an excuse to attack Christians.
You’re merely proving more and more the depth of your bigotry and hatred.
Meanwhile, you’ve just been neutralized and exposed as a complete hypocrite, given your support and unwillingness to condemn clear examples of people treating others like “garbage” when it comes to your fellow antireligious bigots doing it.
And what laughingly caps it off is your usual last-ditch tactic when you’re cornered and exposed; projecting onto others what you yourself are doing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - September 26, 2007
So-o-o-o-o-o, HH, when do I get to read those examples of hateful comments. Since I spew a constant stream of hate, it should be pretty easy for you to find one. Also, real eager to see your proof that Mormons worship someone other than Jesus Christ.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 7:02 pm - September 26, 2007
#98: Then, if that is the case, you should have no need to insult me or V the K.
But, as you demonstrated again in #101, you do.
Again, the hypocrisy and cowardice of a gay leftist; when he is confronted, he whines and cries about how we should all get along, sticks and stones….and then, when you walk away, he attacks you.
Actually, you serve an excellent purpose, fnln; you demonstrate what a hypocrite HardHobbit is, given his support and endorsement of your behavior and his refusals to condemn your hate speech against religious people.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 7:05 pm - September 26, 2007
NDT, you’re quoting the NYT on your blog. What on earth are Bruce and Dan going to think about that? There’ll be some gnashing of teeth around here I say.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 7:06 pm - September 26, 2007
Somehow, I think they and I will survive quite nicely, thank you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 7:09 pm - September 26, 2007
Here is a very good online debate that for me, answers the question whether Mormonism is a Christian denomination.
The following is a quote:
“…We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.
Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.”
Mormons reject the idea of the trinity and consider themselves the only true Christian church, denying all others salvation. Mormons for many years didn’t call themselves Christians because traditional Christianity was, to them, the Church of the Devil.
One can label anything as ‘Christian’ if one includes Jesus Christ in the name? Wishful, simplistic, narrow thinking.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - September 26, 2007
You’re insulted because I said that no one could be far enough right of you and V the K. Surely your skin must be thicker than that.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 7:21 pm - September 26, 2007
We don’t have to get along. I certainly don’t care if you don’t like me because I am certain that you know that I don’t like you. I do find it funny, however, that the king of negative labeling gets upset at me for doing the same thing. Talk about hypocrisy.
Comment by fnln — September 26, 2007 @ 7:26 pm - September 26, 2007
Mormons reject the idea of the trinity and consider themselves the only true Christian church, denying all others salvation.
The Unitarians reject the idea of the trinity.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it is the only true Christian church.
And my own Lutheran church exists as a separate entity because it rejected what was “orthodoxy” in 15th-century Roman Catholicism.
You’ll have to do a lot better than that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - September 26, 2007
Bitter, Party of One? Your table is ready.
The values of the left are so f**ked up it’s beyond belief.
Only an idiot would fail to see the difference.
et al.
I could go to other threads, but won’t. It won’t matter to you anyway. You’ll never recognize it and even if you do, you’ll never admit to it. I am curious, though, as to why someone who treats others as you do belong to a religion that places great importance upon witnessing and converting? Has it occurred to you that witnessing is not necessarily a literal activity? If you are convinced that I and others are so uninformed re. Mormonism and its true Christianity, then have you considered informing us at least with your behavior?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - September 26, 2007
You’re insulted because I said that no one could be far enough right of you and V the K.
Nope.
You made a far more petty and insulting statement than that.
There’s probably a lot of wishful thinking there, but what do I know? Perhaps the conversion therapy didn’t work.
The reason that bothers you, fnln, is that if people choose to be homosexual, your behavior has no justification.
Right now, you use homosexuality as a lavender version of Tourette’s syndrome, allowing you to proclaim your hatreds publicly, spout antireligious bigotry, insult and malign others, and then blame it all on your sexual orientation.
Be a man and publicly state that homosexuality does not require you to be an antireligious bigot, and that people like yourself are merely using your homosexuality to avoid taking responsibility and accountability for your beliefs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 7:31 pm - September 26, 2007
In your case, HardHobbit, Matthew 7:6 applies quite nicely:
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
That especially applies in your case, since you have already proudly declared you know enough about Christianity and have rejected it.
As Matthew 10:14 puts it:
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 7:36 pm - September 26, 2007
“So in other words, even though you didn’t agree with arturo, you used his statements as an excuse to attack Christians.
You’re merely proving more and more the depth of your bigotry and hatred.”
No (sigh). I didn’t agree with arturo and I didn’t disagree with him — I didn’t analyze his statements and make a ruling. I merely pointed out that I disagree with the way he was being treated for making his statements, stating that the behavior of those who attacked him (not only his statements, but him) is entirely at odds with their faiths.
No, my only bigotry here is against your behavior: Hypocrisy. And yes, I hate hypocrisy. Hypocrisy does incredible damage to your faith and thus, so do you. I would be interested to find out what your pastor thinks of your statements here in these threads and the way you treat others.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 7:46 pm - September 26, 2007
So in other words, when arturo makes offensive statements about Christians, your primary concern is berating Christians, not arturo.
Again, that demonstrates your bigotry and hypocrisy. You claim to be against hateful speech and treating people like garbage — but, inexplicably, the only time you ever claim anything is either is when Christians are saying it.
In short, people can scream that religious people are all murdering fascists and fools who should be forced to repudiate their faith, be denied jobs, and publicly mocked, and that gays who are religious are closeted self-loathing fools and you have “no opinion”…..but let someone point out that this is antireligious bigotry on their part and you have screaming and sanctimonious fits about how it’s “not Christian”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - September 26, 2007
“So in other words, when arturo makes offensive statements about Christians, your primary concern is berating Christians, not arturo.”
So in other words, you’re allowed to treat arturo in as un-Christian a way as you can get away with, so long as arturo makes what you consider anti-Christian statements. And if someone points out that your very behavior does far more damage than arturo ever could, that someone is an anti-religious bigot. Do I have that right?
“Again, that demonstrates your bigotry and hypocrisy. You claim to be against hateful speech and treating people like garbage — but, inexplicably, the only time you ever claim anything is either is when Christians are saying it.”
No. Now you’re demonstrating pure ignorance. I don’t expect you to remember those things I’ve written in these threads, but I’ve had disagreements with more than several participants, including their behaviors, and the conversations didn’t revolve around faith, nor was I even aware of their faiths or lack of same.
“In short, people can scream that religious people are all murdering fascists and fools who should be forced to repudiate their faith, be denied jobs, and publicly mocked, and that gays who are religious are closeted self-loathing fools and you have “no opinion”…..but let someone point out that this is antireligious bigotry on their part and you have screaming and sanctimonious fits about how it’s “not Christian”.”
Merely because a person doesn’t express an opinion re. every single possible subject that is addressed here in these threads does not automatically mean he hasn’t formed an opinion on any number of them. Do you actually think that silence automatically means tacit approval? For example, I didn’t express an opinion re. the lesbian who claimed an attraction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. How does that translate to you — that I think it’s perfectly fine and consistent? Why would I need to address something so obvious and thus so boring?
But how am I a gay leftist, Dallas? You’ve quoted others, then tried to link me to those quotes when I never expressed an opinion re. same. Does that make me a leftist? You’ve twisted my words (and misquoted me), drawing conclusions that are patently ridiculous. Does this make me a leftist? The reason I detest religious hypocrisy so much is that there is simply no human accountability. Everything — every transgression — is forgiven if repentance is sought. As long as the sinner is convinced he’s repentant, then how can I possibly disagree with him? I cannot climb into his mind and know whether that’s true, right? And this is why I really dislike your behavior. It flies in the face of everything you profess to believe in and what’s more, you seem to enjoy it. This I’ll never understand. Religion, as I understand it, is a very serious topic and should never be treated the way you treat it. Yes, I have largely rejected it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize its importance and it doesn’t mean I consider people of faith as a bunch of fascists or a bunch of hayseeds or a bunch of charlatans, though examples of all three types may indeed be ‘of faith’.
You should be able to rise above the perceived anti-Christian sentiments expressed here and elsewhere and respond in a way that will ‘kill them with kindness’, a way that will prove a ridiculous assertion as just that. You should be better than you are. But of course you’ll simply respond by making some cutting remark, claiming I am in no position to tell you how you ’should’ behave because after all, I’m an anti-religious bigot and a gay leftist and my pointing out your hypocrisy is a sanctimonious fit, or some such. Persecuted much?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 8:42 pm - September 26, 2007
If you looked up the Articles of Faith, you would see that none of that is true. Pay particular attention to Articles 1, 3, 4 and 11. They pretty clearly contradict everything you just said.
And, um, frankly, taking a few one-line comments out of context was a pretty lame try even for you…. and none of them even come near the level of “hate”. One was a pretty tame response to an anti-religious rant by fnln, and the other two were directed at the left’s appeasement of Anhmadinnerjacket’s brutal regime. That’s supposed to be hate? You insult my entire religion, then you claim *I’m* hateful because I attack the idiocy of appeasing a brutal, megalomaniacal dictator?
That’s … actually pretty funny. I really think the only reason I post here sometimes is it gives me a chuckle.
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 8:50 pm - September 26, 2007
And also, this notion that the way to be a “good Christian” (as asserted by a non-believer) is to stand by and let one’s faith be attacked without defending it, is… here I am being all *hateful* again… absurd. This idea that I have to let my faith be attacked, because by defending it, I might discourage some anti-Christian bigot who’s already made up his mind from converting. Really, how can one be a witness to one’s faith if one just stands by and lets it be attacked?
I mean, that would be like Jesus saying to the Pharisees, “You know what, you guys, who am I to judge? I’m sorry I offended you. I’m just gonna go back to the shop and build some chairs.”
Comment by V the K — September 26, 2007 @ 9:16 pm - September 26, 2007
So in other words, you’re allowed to treat arturo in as un-Christian a way as you can get away with, so long as arturo makes what you consider anti-Christian statements.
And there the truth comes out: HardHobbit doesn’t consider any of these to be anti-Christian statements.
This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is
They ARE fascists in their beliefs.
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
I think having 155 members of the justice department who’ve graduated from Pat Robertson’s “law school” is a good step towards an “under the radar” infusion of ultra-theocratic attempts to use religion to set policy and law in this country.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
What you are trying to do, HardHobbit, is to pervert Christian faith — in which you don’t even believe — to prevent yourself and your fellow gay leftists from being held accountable for your antireligious bigotry and hatred.
Case in point:
You should be able to rise above the perceived anti-Christian sentiments expressed here and elsewhere and respond in a way that will ‘kill them with kindness’, a way that will prove a ridiculous assertion as just that. You should be better than you are.
Again, HardHobbit argues that these statements are not anti-Christian.
Furthermore, notice how, instead of holding arturo, fnln, Kevin, and others accountable for their statements, which would require him to criticize the behavior of other gay leftists, he blames the people against whom they made the statements.
The problem here is that arturo, fnln, and Kevin made patently-bigoted and hateful statements. You can’t admit that because they’re gay leftists like you are. And instead of admitting that and taking accountability and responsibility, you blame others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2007 @ 9:26 pm - September 26, 2007
NDT, I think you’re being a bit too eager to pound on HH with a hammer. You can find fault in Individual Christians (Me) Groups (Mormons) and even people who hide behind the term (Fred Phelps (D-Asshole)) without throwing the entire concept to the wind. I think that HH falls in that catagory. I don’t recall, unlike Artuo and fnln (who’s example of running away is his refusal to recant that he looks forward to American deaths under a Republican President for his political gain), raw hatred towards people of faith in general. (HH, if you do hate all people of religion in general, please feel free to correct me)
I do find it petty to the point of absurdity that there are people who have to conflate those who want all of us DEAD and have the ropes to prove it with those who want to keep their way of life from being impacted/destroyed by our own deviences.
Comment by The Livewire — September 26, 2007 @ 9:55 pm - September 26, 2007
“Now, if Fred Phelps and his ilk had control of the government and a vast army of morality police to carry out his edicts, *then* he would be equivalent to Ahmadinnerjacket. Instead, he is regarded by most all of Christendom as a sideshow freak, as is right and proper.
Only an idiot would fail to see the difference.”
V the K is lying again. The above is the entire quote, proving that he wasn’t referring to Iran’s dictator as an idiot; rather, he was referring to anyone in the thread that didn’t agree with him.
How have I insulted Mormonism?
Did you read the debate I linked to?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - September 26, 2007
“(HH, if you do hate all people of religion in general, please feel free to correct me)”
Livewire, no *grin*, I don’t hate all religious people. I don’t hate anyone. I’m glad you’re able to discern the nature and extent of my disagreement.
Part of the problem is the nature of the medium. The blogosphere thrives on just this kind of argument and where religion is involved, any value possessed therein is trumped by the desire to win, to beat the other participant down, to chase them away.
It’s all a big waste of time, really.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 10:10 pm - September 26, 2007
“And there the truth comes out: HardHobbit doesn’t consider any of these to be anti-Christian statements.”
How do you reach that conclusion? That I used the phrase “…what you consider…”? That automatically implies I don’t consider arturo’s statements anti-Christian?
Similarly:
“You should be able to rise above the perceived anti-Christian sentiments expressed here and elsewhere and respond in a way that will ‘kill them with kindness’, a way that will prove a ridiculous assertion as just that. You should be better than you are.
Again, HardHobbit argues that these statements are not anti-Christian.”
I have not stated any value-judgment re. arturo’s statements (and certainly those statements to which I haven’t referred to at all, namely those made by fnln and Kevin). So, how have I argued that these statements aren’t anti-Christian? Is it that I used the phrase “…perceived anti-Christian statements…”, that to you, implies that I don’t consider them anti-Christian? Again, not commenting re. a certain statement automatically implies I agree with it?
This is pure pedantry for the sake of satisfying your lust to see a bigot around every corner.
“…he blames the people against whom they made the statements.”
No, I have done no such thing. I’ve merely (but at great length and repeatedly) pointed out that attacking someone for his views (whether justified or not) is un-Christian. It is anti-Christian. And no, I don’t need to be a Christian in order to do so. Do I need to be Jewish in order to justifiably condemn Rabin’s assassin? Do I need to be Christian in order to justifiably condemn the many stupid statements made by Pat Robertson? Do I need to be a Mormon to justifiably regard the story of the rose-colored glasses as rather peculiar, to say the least?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 26, 2007 @ 10:29 pm - September 26, 2007
“This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is
They ARE fascists in their beliefs.”
GayPatriot North Dallas Thirty, what this fascist and Christian social conservatives agree is that homosexuality is “chosen” in “permissive” environments.
What makes our own fascists is that in their sacred, holy Word of God, whose purpose is to instruct us how to create an environment best cleared of sin, homosexuals “shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them.” That is fascist. You find that acceptable, I do not.
As I said above, I do not believe fascists should be “punished” for thinking that way, for speaking their minds, or for wanting to create an environment where people will not choose sin, will not choose homosexuality, like in Ahmadinejad’s Iran (in his mind) at present. I believe in freedom and in democracy. I believe in the general goodness of people, and that in a free society most people will reject fascism. But people will reject it only if they recognize it as such. I’m here to point it out. Because I believe in the goodness of people, I’m inclined to believe that those who would otherwise turn fascist would reject it if it was pointed to them early enough. That’s all I’m doing. I don’t want to take anyone’s rights. I’m not for hate-crime legislation, and I’m not for anti-discrimination laws in the marketplace (the only ones I might favor is anti-discrmination laws based on gender, and that is really the best way to get get rid of discrminiation based on sexual orientation).
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 26, 2007 @ 11:24 pm - September 26, 2007
(continued)
…they should be allowed to act on their bigotry. In a free society, good people will reject it.
(the end).
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 26, 2007 @ 11:52 pm - September 26, 2007
(not the end)
You’re against freedom and for oppression, like fascist Ahmadinejad, because with freedom, you insist, people will choose “eating sh*t/piss”.
(i had to say that)
Comment by arturo fernandez — September 27, 2007 @ 12:23 am - September 27, 2007
HardHobbit: if that is all you have to show V is a so-called “steady stream of hate”, what does it make you? Because I’ve seen you do worse, in this thread and many others.
Once more into the breach as, with you, the issues of hypocrisy and projection are rarely far off.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2007 @ 12:29 am - September 27, 2007
As for you, arturo: I still don’t see you dealing with the fact that Christians have, in fact, already denounced and erased the Levitical / Deuteronomic regulations and penalties (for Gentiles, or some would argue, possibly for everyone). Welcome to the Common Era.
Finally, does anyone remember what the topic of the thread is supposed to be? “Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People”?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2007 @ 1:06 am - September 27, 2007
(”erased” the penalties in terms of effect, of course - Not the literal page)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2007 @ 1:27 am - September 27, 2007
No, I have done no such thing. I’ve merely (but at great length and repeatedly) pointed out that attacking someone for his views (whether justified or not) is un-Christian. It is anti-Christian.
LMAO.
Do you need to be reminded of this?
This fascist agrees with Christian social conservatives, who do not denouce Leviticus for the evil that it is
They ARE fascists in their beliefs.
As for the other subject, the reason that homosexuals aren’t dying en masse at the hands of Christians in the US is because Christians have not yet succeeded in establishing a theocracy to infect what should be a secular government yet.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
I think having 155 members of the justice department who’ve graduated from Pat Robertson’s “law school” is a good step towards an “under the radar” infusion of ultra-theocratic attempts to use religion to set policy and law in this country.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
There’s probably a lot of wishful thinking there, but what do I know? Perhaps the conversion therapy didn’t work.
And yet you are utterly and completely incapable of saying that any of THOSE are “un-Christian” or “anti-Christian”.
And now for this:
In fact, pointing out where believers are inconsistent with their faiths strengthens the faiths, not weakens them. Faiths and their adherents should be tested, just as God ostensibly tests them.
As I have cited before, 1 John 4:1 - 3 manages things quite nicely.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
So, HardHobbit, do you acknowledge that Jesus Christ came in the flesh from God to save us all from our sins?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2007 @ 2:41 am - September 27, 2007
Are you kidding me with this sentence? “who’s example of running away is his refusal to recant that he looks forward to American deaths under a Republican President for his political gain”
Sorry tool, but that’s not running away. You voted for a Republican who started a war in Iraq and sent Americans to die for nothing. You voted for him again in 2004. You want this war to continue because you’re on some high-horse about a global war on terror (which is crap).
Now your upset because I stated that I hoped Republicans win in 2008 so they can continue to take the blame for the mess that your Republican politician created.
The only one that looks forward to American deaths is you for continuing to vote for a party that pays lip service to respecting life, yet wallows in glee at the death penalty and war for profit.
And yes, I do hope Republicans win in 2008 so they can continue to take the blame for the very mess their leader created.
If you care so much about Americans dying then do something about getting them back home instead of staying the course and dying for absolutely nothing. Spreading Democracy through the middle east indeed. You’ll buy anything won’t you?
Grow up.
Comment by fnln — September 27, 2007 @ 5:07 am - September 27, 2007
#124: HH, are you so desperate to smear me that you’re tacitly arguing that there is no difference between the power wielded by Ahmadinejad and that of Fred Phelps?
And when you assert that Mormonism isn’t Christianity (an assertion easily refuted by even a cursory examination of the LDS Articles of Faith), that is a slur against Mormons.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 5:09 am - September 27, 2007
“You’re insulted because I said that no one could be far enough right of you and V the K.
Nope.
You made a far more petty and insulting statement than that.
There’s probably a lot of wishful thinking there, but what do I know? Perhaps the conversion therapy didn’t work.
The reason that bothers you, fnln, is that if people choose to be homosexual, your behavior has no justification.
Right now, you use homosexuality as a lavender version of Tourette’s syndrome, allowing you to proclaim your hatreds publicly, spout antireligious bigotry, insult and malign others, and then blame it all on your sexual orientation.
Be a man and publicly state that homosexuality does not require you to be an antireligious bigot, and that people like yourself are merely using your homosexuality to avoid taking responsibility and accountability for your beliefs.”
Did that hurt your feelings? Aw, poor NDT.
My ridicule for religion and religious zealots has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Homosexuality doesn’t require one to be an antireligious bigot. I take full responsibility for my beliefs. If that makes me a bigot, well you’ll just have to deal with it. You can ponder it in church on Sunday, but I’ll pick up the pieces of my life and move on. Please, by all means, defend your religion, your religious zealot “friends”, and their actions, but don’t expect the rest of us to go along quietly while they actively work to infect everything with their mythological and erroneous beliefs.
Comment by fnln — September 27, 2007 @ 5:14 am - September 27, 2007
Or maybe HH is asserting that it’s not stupid to put Ahmadinnerjacket and Fred Phelps on the same plane in terms of how much political power they’ve been given by their respective societies. I happen to think it is. Does that make me hateful?
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 5:39 am - September 27, 2007
Well I find it interesting that when the HRC means business, they send out e-mails to everyone on their list regarding that issue. Seems gays slaughtered in other countries isn’t important enough.
Likewise, they can bloviate for days on end on how Bush and the evilangelicals are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe sonsofbitches but when it comes to gays slaughtered in other countries, we get an “oh, by the way….”. Not to mention the fact that if you weren’t there when the “proclomation” was handed down, you have to go look for it. But they’ll move heaven and earth to let you know how they imagine life sucks for gays in America.
Long story short, the self-centered fags at HRC bitch about not getting to hold hands without being looked at funny, meanwhile gays elsewhere are taking a long drop with a quick stop on the rope just for being who they are. I see very little, if any, evidence that the “gay leadership” gives a good Goddamn about it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2007 @ 6:08 am - September 27, 2007
FNLN, just so I understand the clarification you made (#134), you don’t “look forward to American deaths under a Republican President for [your] political gain.” You just hope that the political party that “sent Americans to die for nothing,” fabricated “a global war on terror (which is crap),” “wallows in glee at the death penalty and war for profit” WINS the next election so that Republicans can take the BLAME for “staying the course” and sending U.S. soldiers to die for “absolutely nothing.”
When you put it that way I guess that IS different.
P.S. How on Earth did you find the space for all of those stickers on the back of your car?
Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2007 @ 7:08 am - September 27, 2007
V the K, you’re a liar.
#45 “Now, if Fred Phelps and his ilk had control of the government and a vast army of morality police to carry out his edicts, *then* he would be equivalent to Ahmadinnerjacket. Instead, he is regarded by most all of Christendom as a sideshow freak, as is right and proper.
Only an idiot would fail to see the difference.” — V the K
#120 “…then you claim *I’m* hateful because I attack the idiocy of appeasing a brutal, megalomaniacal dictator?” — V the K
There it is.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 7:18 am - September 27, 2007
“#124: HH, are you so desperate to smear me that you’re tacitly arguing that there is no difference between the power wielded by Ahmadinejad and that of Fred Phelps?”
No, I’m arguing no such thing. So now everything I don’t say is held against me? Talk about desperation.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 7:20 am - September 27, 2007
There what is? I said it was stupid/idiotic to equate Ahmadinnerjacket and Fred Phelps. I stand by that opinion. You cited that opinion as an example of “a steady stream of hate.”
Weak, but good for a laugh, I suppose.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 7:28 am - September 27, 2007
“LMAO.” — NorthDallasThirty
Yeah, sure you are. But why did you leave out the emoticon(s)?
“So, HardHobbit, do you acknowledge that Jesus Christ came in the flesh from God to save us all from our sins?”
I’m an agnostic, so no, I don’t believe that. So…do you think Jews are the anti-Christ, too?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 7:29 am - September 27, 2007
If this gets any funnier, I’m gonna have to make popcorn.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 7:31 am - September 27, 2007
Honest questions:
Don’t Mormons believe that God used to be a man on another planet? (Is that the idea of Kolob, or is that the star where God lives now?) And don’t Mormons also believe in the concept of ’spirit children’?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 7:35 am - September 27, 2007
The answers to those questions are irrelevant to the issue of whether Mormons are Christians, since Mormons believe that Salvation comes through Jesus Christ.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 7:42 am - September 27, 2007
You can’t even admit when you’re caught in an obvious lie. Is that being a good Mormon?
“If this gets any funnier, I’m gonna have to make popcorn.” — V the K
Is laughing at someone being a good Mormon?
“The values of the left are so f**ked up it’s beyond belief.” — V the K
Is this an example of being a good Mormon?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 7:43 am - September 27, 2007
“The answers to those questions are irrelevant to the issue of whether Mormons are Christians, since Mormons believe that Salvation comes through Jesus Christ.” — V the K
Is evading questions about Mormonism being a good Mormon?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 7:44 am - September 27, 2007
Don’t Mormons also believe that God had sex with Mary to create Christ? This is one I would really struggle with.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 7:47 am - September 27, 2007
First, I never claimed to be a good Mormon. Second, the questions you ask are about Mormon Theology, which is irrelevant to whether or not Mormonism is Christianity… you have asserted that it is not.
This theology includes the idea that God was, or may have been, mortal and achieved Divinity through Progression, and that humans can eventually achieve the same thing. This aspect of Theology doesn’t interest me because I have no desire to be a god. And this has nothing to do with whether or not Mormons are Christian.
Mormons believe in the Immaculate Conception, the same as other Christian faiths.
But, nice try at changing the subject from your false (albeit amusing) accusations of hate speech.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 7:56 am - September 27, 2007
I think a lot of non-believers have this false (and frankly stunted) view of religion as this top-down thing where all aspects of belief are dictated by another authority. It simply isn’t so. There is constant and vigorous philosophical debate over the meaning of scripture, over what is literal and what is metaphor, over the application of doctrine, and a wide-range of matters. Frankly, it’s much more intellectually vigorous then the side that simply rejects faith out-of-hand.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 8:14 am - September 27, 2007
“First, I never claimed to be a good Mormon.”
Well, I’m sure one can now hear a huge sigh of relief emanating from the state of Utah. So, that gives your willingness to succumb to the baseness of your character free reign? One doesn’t need to be a ‘good Mormon’ or even a ‘bad Mormon’ to recognize that the behavior you regularly engage in here stands way, way outside your faith. In that sense, there are millions of atheists who are better Mormons than you.
“Second, the questions you ask are about Mormon Theology, which is irrelevant to whether or not Mormonism is Christianity… you have asserted that it is not.”
No, the teachings of any religion are what define that religion. Whether the LDS church is a Christian church is determined by what it teaches compared to what Christianity teaches. Else, any church could claim it is Christian regardless of the content of its teachings. Santaria, for example, is not Christianity, even though it is loosely based upon it. (But I should add here for the sake of the perpetually persecuted that I’m not equating Santaria with the Mormon church. Gotta make that clear.) I do know that Mormons believe that only the Book of Mormon is the true word of God, that it is the more ‘correct’ version of the Bible. I think that’s awfully close to admitting that it isn’t Christianity, don’tcha think?
“This aspect of Theology doesn’t interest me because I have no desire to be a god.”
So one chooses to be a god? And you have no desire to be one? Whew! ‘Cause otherwise, I was in a heap o’ trouble!
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 8:22 am - September 27, 2007
I have to chuckle at the arrogance when someone who rejects faith utterly sets himself up as the arbiter of who is Christian and who isn’t.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 8:32 am - September 27, 2007
And when that arbiter who delights in telling Christians they aren’t Christian is the same person who threw a hissy-fit because he didn’t like it when someone called him a leftist, that’s especially rich. I really gotta get started on that popcorn.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 8:48 am - September 27, 2007
“I think a lot of non-believers have this false (and frankly stunted) view of religion as this top-down thing where all aspects of belief are dictated by another authority. It simply isn’t so. There is constant and vigorous philosophical debate over the meaning of scripture, over what is literal and what is metaphor, over the application of doctrine, and a wide-range of matters. Frankly, it’s much more intellectually vigorous then the side that simply rejects faith out-of-hand.”
Where have I claimed that religion is a ‘top-down thing’, ‘dictated by another authority’? Show me where I’ve done so. And any vigorous philosophical debate (that is a true debate where participants are willing to actually discuss issues with one another) is by definition more intellectually ‘vigorous’ (Did you mean rigorous?) than simple dismissal. This is true for any range of subjects.
You claim to be a Mormon and thus, a Christian. That’s perfectly fine. But the following is a quote from Joseph Smith:
“I have more to boast about than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation.” — Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6 (1844)
Is this Christianity? (For non-Mormons such as myself, bear in mind that Joseph Smith is someone who claimed the moon is inhabited, describing these inhabitants as wearing clothing in the Quaker style.) Again, for most of its existence, the Mormon church refused to consider itself Christian. Now it does. But I refuse to accept that it is Mormons who determine whether it is acceptably ‘Christian’. No religion of any substance would allow any claimant to determine what it is and what it should and should not teach. I believe such claims have to be considered extremely carefully and with a good deal of skepticism. In this sense, I’m an absolute conservative. And no, this is not necessarily a ‘top-down thing’. After Christ’s resurrection, the earliest churches were far from top-down.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 8:52 am - September 27, 2007
“I have to chuckle at the arrogance when someone who rejects faith utterly sets himself up as the arbiter of who is Christian and who isn’t.”
So an agnostic cannot make the determination that a Satanist isn’t a Christian on the grounds that he rejects both and thus should have no opinion?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 8:58 am - September 27, 2007
That’s silliness. Satanists explicitly reject Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the center of LDS teaching. But HH claims this doesn’t count somehow.
Munch. Munch. Discard unpopped kernel. Munch.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 9:08 am - September 27, 2007
This is one of the most mind-numbingly stupid threads ever… And V, no, not because of you. Because of you-know-who.
Well, at least there’s pages of evidence now that he does have severe prejudices (as in inappropriate pre-conceptions or pre-judgments) about Mormons. On top of the other stuff we’ve seen before (mood swings, grandiosity, hypocrisy, general irrationality, etc.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2007 @ 10:56 am - September 27, 2007
Here’s a more pedestrian example (because it seems that’s what you need): I neither have to be a communist nor a Third Way socialist to recognize the differences between the two and their respective differences with and from capitalism. Communism and socialism are variants some of the same sorts of ideas, but the core philosophies aren’t the same. One is mob rule, the other is elite rule. Society may be the god they both claim to worship, but in fact their respective gods are vastly different in form and in concept. Third Way socialists usually don’t reject communism (although some may) — they simply think it’s taking their ideas too far. Communists usually don’t reject socialism (although some may) — they think it’s a prelude to communism or a more primitive form of their own system. In a parliamentary system, the two are often allies and useful to one another.
But according to you, I cannot possibly have a justified opinion re. the same because I’m neither a socialist nor a communist.
Care to explain Joseph Smith’s boast that he is more successful than Christ himself, that he did work not even Christ could do? I’m awfully interested in how you reconcile that with your ‘Christianity’. And what about the moon people?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 11:10 am - September 27, 2007
But highly entertaining. HH can not refute that Christ is at the center of LDS doctrine, so he comes up with these diatribes about historical anecdotes and positions of the church that he could not possibly understand or put into context.
Frankly, when a person can’t even see the difference between denouncing support for Ahmadinejad and hate speech, there’s not much room for intellectual discussion. Fortunately, there is popcorn.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 11:24 am - September 27, 2007
Yes, V. You get bizarre, pretentious digressions of this sort:
In the real world, they both obviously involve rule by elites, who manipulate mobs as-needed. The only real differences are of degree in (a) legal forms and pretensions, (b) willingness to use gulags and torture.
Less entertaining is stuff like:
Because I already dealt with this general category of false claim on HH’s part (I dare not say “lie”, since he is obviously running on sheer emotion at this point), back at #75 for example.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2007 @ 11:49 am - September 27, 2007
I think HH’s strategy is to pull the discussion away from the Articles of Faith that outline what Mormonism actually believes because he knows they refute his entire hypothesis. Kind of like saying “Forget what’s in the Constitution, look what Thomas Jefferson said to James Madison while watching a c0ckf1ght in 1798.”
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 11:57 am - September 27, 2007
I think this conversation illustrates the very real problem that confronts Mitt Romney. It’s not so much what he believes or what Mormons believe but what people THINK Mormons believe. I was raised Southern Baptist and exposed to a great deal of anti-Mormon propoganda growing up. Some of what I told might be factual or a fair representation of their beliefs or it might not. But Romney is going to have to overcome a great deal of prejudice and in that regard it’s not going to be any easier than the kind of prejudices that would face an ethnic minority or a woman running for president. It’s not fair but it is the reality that he faces.
Comment by Houndentenor — September 27, 2007 @ 12:29 pm - September 27, 2007
That’s right, evade the question. You can’t defend your religion except to insist that it’s Christianity, even though it’s Smith-centered rather than Christ-centered.
And what about those moon-people?
Comment by HardHobbit — September 27, 2007 @ 12:33 pm - September 27, 2007
The Church does not teach that the moon is inhabited. Joseph Smith is revered as a prophet, but he is not the center of the Church. Christ is the center of the church.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - September 27, 2007
If you want to learn the truth about the LDS church, you can always visit LDS.org, or contact your local ward and request a visit.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - September 27, 2007
I’m an agnostic, so no, I don’t believe that.
Well, in that case……
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
1 John 4: 2 - 3
So…do you think Jews are the anti-Christ, too?
Nope.
Because unlike you, HardHobbit, Jews don’t go around lecturing people that they’re not good Christians and trying to manipulate other peoples’ behavior based on that.
And next:
Homosexuality doesn’t require one to be an antireligious bigot. I take full responsibility for my beliefs.
I give that fifteen minutes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2007 @ 12:42 pm - September 27, 2007
The issue is simple, and has been for over 120+ posts now. It’s “HardHobbit vs. logic-and-reality”.
HardHobbit: I have every right to denounce you as a terrible human being and preach Christianity to you, because such behavior on my part falls under a human being’s general right to notice someone else’s hypocrisy, inconsistency, etc.
Logic and Reality: Say what you want, but for the record: (1) Your specific claims here of others’ hypocrisy are highly dubious, and by the way, your own slip is showing, as well as your bra. (2) Disrespectfully and hatefully trying to *preach* or to *teach* others standards that you reject isn’t noticing their hypocrisy anymore; it’s practicing yours. (3) Oh and by the way, you’re in way over your head. You need more knowledge.
But, some people are slow learners, so we go in circles for 120+ posts… Most of it “about” HardHobbit… None of it about “Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 27, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - September 27, 2007
ILC, just as nudists seem to be primarily people who should never be seen naked, its those with the most unjustifiably large egos who seem most incapable of self-editing, and those with the most strident opinions most incapable of examining their own fallacies.
Getting back to “Islamofascism–Real Peril to Gay People,” goin’ way way back to comment #68, I challenged the Christophobes to find the hate in an actual church publication dealing with same-sex attraction. No one answered the challenge.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 1:25 pm - September 27, 2007
Or, put another way, an egomaniac who won’t shut up is like a fat person who won’t put any clothes on.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 1:27 pm - September 27, 2007
HH lecturing other people on their religious beliefs is like Iran condemning Canada for human rights violations.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - September 27, 2007
#170:
Says he who has blathered on to the tune of nearly one in four of the comments in this thread. LOL!!!
Comment by Ian S — September 27, 2007 @ 6:29 pm - September 27, 2007
I wonder what a person is called who counts the number of comments people make just so he can use it as a basis for insulting them.
Petty, definitely. Pathetic, perhaps even better.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 27, 2007 @ 6:40 pm - September 27, 2007
LMAO — that *is* pathetic. Maybe Ian can go back and do a word count and see who left more verbiage.
Comment by V the K — September 27, 2007 @ 6:57 pm - September 27, 2007
139. Isn’t it great when they speak for themselves and get athlete’s tongue?
Comment by The Livewire — September 27, 2007 @ 7:13 pm - September 27, 2007
In a word? Yes.
Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2007 @ 8:08 pm - September 27, 2007
#174:
Probably Never Does Truth since he just regurgitates tired old comments that never made much sense to begin with.
Comment by Ian S — September 27, 2007 @ 10:59 pm - September 27, 2007
I want to thank Ian for providing the opportunity for an excellent “teaching moment.” In his last two comments, he provides an example of the “steady stream of hate” which might help HH better understand the concept.
You see, hate attacks individuals, not ideas. Ian’s last two comments are crude personal attacks. Hate also comes from a place of ignorant bigotry. Instead of responding to the substance of what someone has written, Ian just lashes out at people he despises (Republicans, conservatives, people of faith, et c…)
Hopefully, this teaching moment will help HH from making foolish accusations in the future.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 7:21 am - September 28, 2007
#178: What’s hateful in pointing out how laughable it is that you of all people would complain about egomaniacs who won’t shut up. Especially after making nearly one in four of all the comments in this thread? And while you whine about “hateful” comments, you make one yourself directed towards circumferentially-challenged people.
Comment by Ian S — September 28, 2007 @ 10:06 am - September 28, 2007
Now it’s Ian’s turn to demand attention.
Go, Ian, go!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 10:35 am - September 28, 2007
He’s not as popcorn-worthy as HH though.
HH’s rants have a pseudo-intellectual Janeane Garofalo “trying to look smart” quality to them, that’s entertaining, but with a little hint of sadness because you can’t help feeling a little sorry for her. Ian is more like a one-note Randi Rhodes or one of those calls on the “Hate Hannity Hotline” that Sean Hannity plays occasionally.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 11:34 am - September 28, 2007
This thread is pretty humorous.
No, hate need not be directed toward any one person. Islamists hate western ideas, many of them knowing no particular westerner. So, it’s correct to say that hate often (usually) comes from ignorance.
Re. Mormonism:
I don’t hate Mormonism. Why would I? But I do question a Mormon’s contention that it (Mormonism) is Christianity. Why wouldn’t I? Shouldn’t I? I don’t have any vested interest in the answer, but I’m interested in the answer nonetheless. To ask questions of Mormonism and the statements of its founders is natural, especially when Mormons are reversing their own years-ago contention that they aren’t Christians.
Do my (or anyone else’s) questions re. the Mormon religion imply it’s a bad religion? Of course not. It’s a large and quickly-growing religion, so it must be doing something many think is right. But its numbers alone don’t make it a ‘good’ religion and the claims of its adherents alone don’t make it Christianity. This is just common sense.
So when I ask a question re. the idea that God had sex with Mary in order to conceive Christ, I ask because this is what Brigham Young taught his followers. Is this official Mormon teaching, or has this been repudiated? If it has been repudiated, does this at all affect how Brigham Young is viewed by the Mormon faith and/or how then do non-Mormons view such teachings and such Mormon leaders? Are these inappropriate questions? Does my ignorance of the answers to such questions imply hate? Of course not.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 28, 2007 @ 1:19 pm - September 28, 2007
Re. #167:
What Dallas wrote:
*************
Because unlike you, HardHobbit, Jews don’t go around lecturing people that they’re not good Christians and trying to manipulate other peoples’ behavior based on that.
And next:
Homosexuality doesn’t require one to be an antireligious bigot. I take full responsibility for my beliefs.
I give that fifteen minutes.
**************
It should be noted that his quotation “Homosexuality doesn’t require…for my beliefs” is not from me, though he appears to have implied thus by not stating his source.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 28, 2007 @ 1:24 pm - September 28, 2007
#179 Yes, exactly. But he doesn’t see it that way, of course. He lied about me, claiming I have a ‘fierce anti-Mormon bigotry’, yet blithely makes the kinds of comments you reference — behavior that is patently anti-Mormon (anti-Mormon to the credit of the Mormon religion).
Comment by HardHobbit — September 28, 2007 @ 1:30 pm - September 28, 2007
Yea! I Can Has Popcorn!
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 1:46 pm - September 28, 2007
#163 Does Romney face an unfair prejudice re. his faith? You bet he does. If the election were between Romney and Clinton, I would vote for Romney every single time. Mormonism ain’t socialism. Oh wait — now there’s going to be a socialist that’s going to throw a hissy fit because as a capitalist and non-Mormon, I have no right to make that judgment!
As an agnostic, I’m not as concerned about a candidate’s faith as some others are. (This kind of concern is particularly consistent with atheism — atheists seem the most concerned and prejudiced of all. fnln, is this true of yourself?) I don’t like the explicit mixing of religion and politics, but like all other aspects of a candidate, I balance the good and the bad and make a determination as to who would do the most good or most harm. Religion is just one consideration and for me, a very minor one.
(Let me add that if the candidate were an avowed Satanist, I would have problems casting my vote for them.)
Comment by HardHobbit — September 28, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - September 28, 2007
#185 Only if you share.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 28, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - September 28, 2007
I guess the proper LOLCAT formulation should be: I CAN HAS POPCORNZ.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 1:55 pm - September 28, 2007
So when I ask a question re. the idea that God had sex with Mary in order to conceive Christ, I ask because this is what Brigham Young taught his followers.
Actually, you ask it to be provocative.
And my answer is simply this: who cares?
What we know is that Mary didn’t have sex with Joseph until after Jesus was born.
What we know is that she became, as the Bible puts it, “with child through the Holy Spirit”.
Given God’s omnipotence, there are literally an infinite number of ways in which that could have happened. The only reason it matters in the least is to say that God was not limited to “having sex” as we would know it in our context to accomplish matters, but at the same time, He certainly could have chosen to do so.
What is really funny is when nonbelievers like yourself try to manipulate religious people into attacking each other. All it shows is how little you understand of religion — and also how empty your accusations that someone’s behavior is “not Mormon” or “not Christian”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2007 @ 1:57 pm - September 28, 2007
#189 NDT: I also answered that question, but whenever HH doesn’t like your answer, he ignores it and pretends you never answered him. But I did teach Sunday School, I did teach the Nativity, I used church-provided materials, and no where did they suggest that God did the horizontal mattress bop with Mary.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 2:31 pm - September 28, 2007
“What is really funny…”
Yeah, I can tell you find it really humorous, your ‘LOL’ and such notwithstanding. Laughing at people, especially your previous comment that implies contrition on my part would require a miracle, I would bet doesn’t exactly find itself within the Lutheran canon. You might ask your pastor about that.
“And my answer is simply this: who cares?”
Yep, you sure don’t care. Not enough to continue to post comments re. same, right?
“What is really funny is when nonbelievers like yourself try to manipulate religious people into attacking each other.”
You seek bigotry everywhere you turn, don’t you? It is no mystery as to why you come across as so miserable. The joy and comfort religion is supposed to bring is so utterly absent with you, what with all your lies and misappropriation of comments, your timorous ‘anti-religious bigot’ slurs, your assumption that non-belief is inherently malevolent, your insistence that my refusal to join in attacking an atheist automatically puts me in agreement with him and anything he writes, etc.
Mormonism teaches that God has a wife and together they have what are referred to as ’spirit-babies’. No Christian denomination or organization teaches similar doctrine and neither does Judaism. Does this make Mormonism bad? No. Is this teaching necessarily untrue? No. But it does stand far outside the teachings and texts of Christianity. Who decides what is ‘Christian’? I believe it is Christians who decide.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 28, 2007 @ 2:38 pm - September 28, 2007
#190 Your answer was something like “Mormons believe in immaculate conception…”. That isn’t answering my question, that’s evading it.
Brigham Young taught that God had sexual relations with Mary. Joseph Smith began writing and speaking about beings inhabiting the Moon as early as 1837. According to him, they wore outfits similar to those worn by Quakers. Also, the name Mormon is a liaison of more and the Egyptian word mon, which I believe means ‘good’. Joseph Smith taught that the Pyramids at Giza contain secrets of the origins of the Mormon church and its history. (Was Smith a Mason, by any chance?) This is what I have read in several sources and I’m not making this up. I think, though I’m not sure, that Mormons believe that Jesus existed on the North American continent for awhile.
Comment by HardHobbit — September 28, 2007 @ 3:08 pm - September 28, 2007
And we’re back into, “Forget what’s in the Constitution, look what Thomas Jefferson said to James Madison over a tankard of mead at the pub.”
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 3:14 pm - September 28, 2007
This may be an example of an “Al-Gore-Rithm,” a process wherein one repeats an activity (e.g. vote counting, or re-asking questions that have been already been answered) until one gets the result one wanted before hand.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - September 28, 2007
The joy and comfort religion is supposed to bring is so utterly absent with you,
Again, HardHobbit, you’re trying to lecture me on what Christianity should be or how I should behave when you yourself have admitted to denial of Jesus Christ and of God.
I’m an agnostic, so no, I don’t believe that.
1 John is quite explicit about what that means — and makes it obvious that it especially applies to you.
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
1 John 2: 18 - 23
And further:
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
2 John 1: 7 - 11
In short, you haven’t a pot in which to pi$$ when it comes to Christianity, because you have denied its central and fundamental tenets. You’re sitting here bashing V the K over your claim that his religion doesn’t believe in Jesus or God when you yourself have stated that you don’t believe in Jesus or in God.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2007 @ 5:45 pm - September 28, 2007
I think HH has some fundamental misconceptions about the role of religious faith in the life of a believer, and I think his questions and comments show that. The sad part is, his questions and comments (and his repetition of same) also show that he doesn’t have the capacity to understand that role either. That’s a sad thing. I know for myself some of my most meaningful revelations and understandings have come from leaving my intellectual comfort zone and considering points of view I hadn’t previously considered.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 6:39 pm - September 28, 2007