Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:07:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4568 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > > What term would *you* use for a homicidal, innocent-butchering group who
> > > > believes that they are acting on behalf of God?
> > >
> > > Xtians?
> >
> > Cite please (let's see if you can keep it to within 100 years of today)
>
> Andrea Yates. Those fun fellows who murder physicians who perform abortions.
> Any number of Xtian Scientists or similar denominations forbidding medical
> care for children. Anyone, frankly, instructed by George W Bush to kill during
> the current "War on Terror;" since W has countless times allied us with God,
> and since the recent Congressional flap re: The Pledge indicates clearly that
> the legislature of this fine nation considers itself allied with God, soldiers
> fighting for this country are for all practical purposes acting on behalf of
> God, whether they want to or not.
> You'll probably say "yeah, but most of those people are crazy," or "soldiers
> aren't fighting for God," or "yeah, but they're not *real* Xtians." Baloney.
It's not baloney.
What gets my undies in a bunch is when ignorant people group *all* Christians
together. Because one sorely misguided wacko such as Andrea Yates, who claims
to be a Christian offs all of her kids, that must mean that *ALL* Christians
are guilty of slaughtering innocents. It just doesn't wash, and it's
disingenuous to imply so. 99.9% of all professed Christians would condemn her
actions. Contrast that to how extremist Muslims would condemn a terrorist
attack in the name of Jihad. There is a difference here.
>
> > > Etc.? Yeah, how about atheists? Interesting that you would omit the biggest
> > butchers of all-time...
>
> Such as? Please don't bother me with Hitler(1), who was absolutely NOT an
> athiest, nor Stalin, who for all his "no-god-but-the-state" talk wasn't an
> athiest either.
Really? What *was* Stalin then? How about Pol Pot?
>
> > Ah, we're *all* guilty of butchering innocent women and children, so how could
> > we condemn any one else who does?
>
> I would say that, once one accepts and admits one's own guilt, that person
> gains the perspective to condemn similar actions by others.
But do they gain the *right* to do so? Can one ever condemn in a morally
relativistic world? (BTW, it is not my belief that we ARE all guilty of this--
it is the argument from the other side)
Anyway, I don't
> know how many women and children you've butchered, but my count is exactly
> zero, so I'd hesitate to admit myself into your "all" category.
Oh, but you are an American, and America is guilty of X and Y atrocities, so
that means YOU are guilty of X and Y atrocities...
My count is zero as well, but this is the logical conclusion to RM's reasoning.
>
> Dave!
> (1) The mere *mentioning* of Hitler doesn't breach Godwin's law
Merely because you *claim* it isn't so doesn't necessarily mean it isn't so;-)
-John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
