roachboy

huh?
if you actually read and understood the post--which seems unlikely from the response---o forget it, alansmithee. just forget it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

Again with the condesending tone. I understand that you assume that everyone who doesn't agree with you is inherently less intellegent than you. But that only shows your bias. I read your earlier post, and you clearly are bigoted against Christians. You stated that you think they have a intellectual handicap, and then state that Jesus would be a bigot. It was in your post. Maybe instead of trying to impress everyone with your pseudo-intellect, you should try engaging in discussion and not just lecture down to people. But that would require acknowledging someone as your intellectual peer, something you seemingly cannot do.

raveneye

An important thing to consider here is that the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be "born again" or "evangelical" Christians increased substantially in 1990s, from about a third of respondents to close to half by 1999, and it's been holding steady since then.

Nevertheless, (1) the proportion of the population that considers itself "religious right" during the same period has always been lower, never more than 20%; and (2) the proportion goes down as educational level goes up.

So although the country seems to have become more religious in the last 10-20 years, that increase has not been due to any demographic increases in the religious right.

This indicates to me that any pandering that the Republican party does to this small and marginal religious group is going to hurt the party in the long run, and maybe in the short run too, as we approach the elections next year.

Here's a 1992 poll:
Here's the same question, asked in 1999:
And the same question asked last month:
Here's a 2004 poll on the "Religious Right":
And a similar question with similar responses in 1998. Note that this is a huge poll with 11,000 respondents, and it has the complete demographic breakdown. About 14% of Democrats consider themselves "religious right", but the highest demographic groups were uneducated, poor, and conservative.

roachboy

alansmithee:
i have no interest in engaging in some goofball ad hominem thing with you.
what i have to say about your position on this issue is spread across the posts i made.
if you want to discuss that, then fine, let's do that.

suffice it to say that what i see as interesting about your posts here is the extent to which they operate entirely inside of what i argue is a basic logical problem--the inability to make distinctions between levels of generalilty (in this case between your sense of things as--presumably--an individual believer and how you choose to drag that across reactions to the politics of the extreme (evangelical protestant-domeinated) right).

and that's it.

whether you like or do not like who you imagine me to be across the material of your take on my written voice is of no interest to me. sorry.

but feel free to go on about it, if you would prefer that to actually addressing arguments.

i am under no obligation to reply.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

He is trying to engage in discussion. I think the problem is that you have a difficult time seeing the difference between valid criticism of the religious right and broad sweeping generalizations about christianity in general. If someone criticizes those who work on behalf of the religious right, they are not necessesarily criticizing christianity in general. You readily criticize pat robertson for his hypocrisy, yet it seems to me that if you heard someone else point to him as an example of the moral bankruptcy of the religious right in general you'd automatically assume that said person was commenting on christianity as a whole. The christian right is a minority group within the body of christianity.

I think the problem roachboy is having is that you refuse to address his criticisms of the religious right, instead choosing to pretend that he is making some brash generalization about christianity in general. Then you play the "woe is me, my faith is under attack" card, which doesn't really apply. This is, however the standard operating procedure of those who own the religious right movement. If you can't see this, than why are you pretending to engage in a discussion when you aren't willing to be honest with yourself about someone else's perspective?

host

roachboy and filtherton, is it any wonder that, although we live in the same country as conservatives and politically conservative christians, we don't seem to be able to read each others sentences and successfully extract the
author's intended meaning, when the following passes for commnetary, in "their" world. I don't read this stuff because I don't access the sites and the media personalities that attract a conservative or a christian following.

I know that recently, all six of the holders of the highest national political offices declared themselves to be of the chrisitian faith, predominately of the
southern baptist denomination. Knowing this, and not until recently being exposed to the repetitive message that "the persecution of christians is on the increase", I would have no understanding of the comtradiction that exists between perception and political reality.

If this message of persecution can be advanced and instilled under today's circumstances, what would the message be if those at the top of the political pyramid were jews or muslims?

alansmithee

I can see and respond to valid criticism of the religious right, and separate those criticisms from attacks on Christianity as a whole. He was making an attack at Christianity. IIRC, you were the one who brought up Robertson as someone who reflects negatively on the religious right, yet I didn't accuse you of attacking the whole of Christianity. The problem is that many other people don't separate the two. They use the actions of the religious right as a stepping point for broad based attacks on Christianity as a whole. As was done above.

He wasn't just criticizing the religious right. I will not address baseless bigoted attacks, because no matter what is said you won't change a bigot's mind. And not just my faith, but Christianity as a whole was attacked, I didn't just imagine his words, they are there for all to see.

As for my "pretending to engage" in discussion, if what you said were true, I would be saying that everyone who made negative comments was anti-Christian. I did not, I pointed to a specific example of bigotry. And comments such as those point to someone who has no intrest in discussion or understanding, they show bigotry and bias. Maybe some of the vitriol you direct at me should be directed elsewhere.

roachboy

ok so alansmithee-----so far as i can tell you prefer to willfully misinterpret what i was posting in a manner so thoroughgoing that there is no point in going on with any kind of interaction with you.

that you would choose to see in what i wrote any example of "bigotry" is simply absurd: what is clear is that you did not like what you understood of it--which is apparently not much---and proceeded from there to yet another typical rightwing tactic---the baseless personal accusation.

if you would prefer at some point to actually talk about argument, i'll consider entering into conversation with you. but this------this is stupid

i dont really know what else to say to you about this wholesale misunderstanding of the post.


checking out now.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

If you read his post, he is clearly referring to the evangelical christian right. Please tell me how that amounts to an attack upon christianity as a whole. Besides, aren't conservatives usually the ones who complain about being labeled as bigots by people who can't actually address the contents of their perspective? Haven't you complained about such things when discussing the topic of gay marriage? You of all people should know that calling someone a bigot is a cop-out when in the realm of comparing and competing ideas. If you don't like what he's saying, tell him how he's wrong, otherwise you're really not accomplishing anything other than being the only one to pull out the bigot card.

Try coming up with examples of how the religious right encourages people to think for themselves. Try coming up with examples of how the religious right doesn't completely misrepresent the facts. You could explain, for instance, why the democratic refusal to approve a handful of judges amounts to anything remotely resembling an attack on christianity.

alansmithee

You're right, I've complained about people being labelled bigots without their points being addressed. And all my complaints have gotten previously is ignored/disregarded. So I figured it was an acceptable practice, and decided to try it out myself. You could say it's a typical liberal tactic. And as I said above, I won't be bothered debating with someone about their bigotry, it won'd do any good.

I never said that the religious right encourages people to think for themselves. And as for "completely misrepresent"ing facts, that is always debatable. I might show you some things that you see in a different light. And it would be hard to say which perspective is truly "right". And as for the Dem filibustering, that IMO isn't an attack on Christianity. I don't agree with what the Dems are doing, but I don't see that as an attack on Christianity.

filtherton

You could say its a typlical liberal tactic, except for the fact that you'd have to be ignoring the christian right's use of it when attempting to get ultra conservative judges approved by congress. Is it normal to call out someone on their questionable debate tactics and then employ them one's self? Sounds like you have more in common with pat robertson that you might suspect in terms of ideological consistency.

So tell me again how roachboy was making a statement about all of christianity.

alansmithee

What ultra conservative judges are being put up for votes? I think that's a bit of a stretch, but that's not relevant.

And i've found often the best way to make a point is to show by example. When I would say it's unfair to throw around the term bigot without trying to understand the other side first, it was ignored. I figured that's just how debating went on around here, so I was trying to fit in.

And that little dig at the end was quite cute. But if you're gonna try to call me a hypocrite, at least be brave enough to just come out and say it instead of dancing around.

He made a statement saying that Christians have a collective intellectual handicap. Doesn't get much plainer than that.

But i'm not gonna bother to reply in this thread again. You can now go back to your regularly scheduled Christian bashing without outside interference.

filtherton

Okay, you're a hypocrite. You're a hypocrite because you complain about "liberals" and their "liberal tactics" while employing and supporting those who employ those same tactics. If you didn't think it was a worthwhile tactic when it was employed against you, why do you think it is a worthwhile attack to employ?

He was referring to the evangelical christian right, not christianity as a whole. How is that not clear in his post when he specifically mentions the evangelical christian right? I don't mean to be a prick, but when you point at the sky and say it's red when obviously it is not, don't be surprised when you are called on it.

Christian bashing? Get over yourself. Some of the most important people in my life are seemingly more in tune with the teachings of christ than you could probably ever hope to be. I completely respect their faith and their abilities to think independently. The fact that you all you see in this thread is "christian bashing" reflects more on you than it does on this thread or any of its other participants. All you're doing is proving roachboy's point.

moosenose

There has been a long-going culture war in the US. The lunatic fringe far-left has attacked again and again and again and again. Now the lunatic fringe far right is waking up and fighting back, and the far left doesn't like it. They started the fight. They have to live with the consequences. And the lunatic fringe far right FAR outnumbers the lunatic fringe far left. They should have thought about that before they started the culture war in the first place.

/sitting back and enjoying the fray

moosenose

Tolerance is a two-way street. The gay community demands tolerance of their viewpoint, but excoriates people who hold diametrically opposed viewpoints to them. That's not very tolerant, is it?

Manx

That's not even close to what happens in reality. If it were, sure, you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't have a point.

The gay community demands tolerance of their viewpoint, and excoriates people who do not provide that tolerance. The gay community does not excoriate the straight community (the diametrically opposed viewpoint), only the portion of the straight community that does not tolerate the gay community.

Maybe you expect the people you are intolerant of to be tolerant of your intolerance (as did the author of the quote I posted) - but that is an absurd viewpoint.

Lebell

When you've been around the block a few more times you will begin to see and realize that bigotry holds not allegiance to any race, creed or color.

There are indeed some gays who are just as bigoted as some straights. Denying it only perpetuates bigotry IMO.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Manx

When I've been around the block a few more times?

How many times have I been around the block, Lebell? Your patronizing is uninteresting, though not unexpected. Almost certainly inapplicable, however.

I haven't denied that some random individual gay person, or black person cannot be a bigot - it should be clear that both myself and moosenose were speaking of the communities - not any specific individuals. As evidenced by the use of the word "community" in both of our posts.

moosenose

If you preach tolerance, you need to practice it, too. I don't know many people in the gay community that "tolerate" people who think homosexual sex is a sin. If your position is Homosexual sex is "normal", the gay community generally will tolerate you, even if you're straight. If you think homosexual sex is a sin, or not something to be proud of, the gay community is a lot less tolerant, EVEN IF YOU ARE GAY. For example: the entire "Outing" movement.

Tolerance does NOT equal acceptance as normal. Tolerance means you tolerate something you feel is wrong. And the far left has a LOT to learn about tolerance.

Manx

moosenose -

As soon as the gay community starts demanding that a constitutional amendment be created that illegalizes the marriage of heterosexual couples and as soon as such an amendment has the support of the President of the U.S. and as soon as the gay community has ballot measures placed in a dozen states to eliminate the right for heterosexuals to get married - then I will start to take your statemeent that the gay community is intolerant of the heterosexual community with the seriousness you believe it deserves.

Until that time, the simple fact is that your claim is simply false that intolerance of intolerance is the same thing as plain intolerance.

roachboy

so moose:
let me get this straight--what you are in effect saying is that critiques of racism, for example, should not be advanced because the effect of doing so would be to "discriminate against" the racists? as if there is an equivalence between a history of brutal racism in the united states from it outset thorugh the present and the twinge of embarrassment that racists might experience when they are called on their racism?

or: gay folk should shut up about the persistent type of discrimination they encounter because of who they choose to love (nothing else, friend) because to complain or mobilize or to act politically to eradicate this discrimination would in turn discriminate against homophobes?

or is all this really about loss of position--if you benefit from a racist order and the order comes under attack, then you stand to loose, right? so you now imagine that the effects of the critique constitute a second type of dscrimination?

i find it hard to believe that the sophomoric logic of your post is something that you take seriously--in the backwater of right media, i hear this kind of pseudo-argument advanced quite alot--i dont think limbaugh et al believe it either (though they seem to derive some erotic pleasure from repeating it)--rather this type of argument seems to be more about dissolving the whole idea of arguments against discrimination by a strategy of repeated reduction to absurdity.

so i assume is the case here: the problem is the type of argument against discrimination. all of them. presumably what is being defended behind this is the autonomy of individuals to be a racist, as bigoted, as uninformed as they wish without being bothered by being told that they are racist, bigoted, or uninformed. i cant see another function to the type of argument you advance.

but maybe i only see part of this, so
what do you think you are doing by advancing such arguments?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Lebell

My appologies.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

hokiesandwich

I would like to say that a disservice is done to all the arguments posed here by the "backwater" media of all political stripes. Sure, people are allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights, but the idiocy of political talk shows on the radio and tv has got to stop. I think that this forum has disintegrated into the same two name-calling camps as we see in the media, and it gets us nowhere.

As John Stewart so brilliantly put it when he guested on Crossfire, 'why? stop hurting america!'

We're all on the same team here, guys. I think that is something that the Right-Wing conspiracy and the Liberal Left need to accept.

I know this is slightly irrelevant...but I just can't see the value in empty philosophical exchange for its own sake.

Back to my paper on fascism...