Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:37:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4349 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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.
In fairness, John was looking for groups, not individuals. Any bigish group is
going to have some fruitcakes. And in her case, you can hardly blame her
Christianity (unless there's something I don't know about her).
> Those fun fellows who murder physicians who perform abortions.
This, OTOH, is a totally fair example. I wonder why John only responded to
Andrea Yates.
> > Any number of Xtian Scientists or similar denominations forbidding medical
> > care for children.
John didn't respond to this one either.
> 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.
I agree. And I don't think that anyone was really doing that. Richard was
pointing out that if you go back just a little bit, you can find pretty good
examples of slaughter in every religion. I happen to think that any religion
(or other social grouping) where the adherents feel persecuted and threatened
is fairly likely to be naughty in large groups. Christianity did it earlier in
history when it felt threatened. Islam may be doing the same now and for
similar reasons.
> 99.9% of all professed Christians would condemn her actions.
But 99.9% of Muslims and atheists would too.
> Contrast that to how extremist Muslims would condemn a terrorist
> attack in the name of Jihad. There is a difference here.
The biggest difference is that you specified _extremist_. I can point to
_extremist_ Christians and say that a larger than .1% of them support the
bombing of abortion clinics. Is there still a difference?
> > > > Etc.? Yeah, how about atheists? Interesting that you would omit the
> > > biggest butchers of all-time...
Um...like who?
> 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...
I think Dave disagrees with that stand. I might be the only one here who
thinks that. We all have blood on our hands.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
