Posted by tekriter -snip long-winded bullshit-

While I think it's cute that you're delving into four pages of pseudo-intellectual bullshit to cover up how wrong you are (not to mention resorting to that old flame-war staple of trying to insult my education), let me simplify it WAY down for you.

You compared the Christians taking over here with the Taliban taking over there, and call it the American Taliban as if it's the similar. While the Christians taking over would be bad, it would be nowhere near like living under the Taliban. Everyone here--including you--knows that's true.

Rather than say, "Yeah, you're right, it's not comparable but the Christians taking over would still be a nightmare," rather than just say that, you spend like five or six pages pointing out every similarity between Christians and Muslims that you can find and completely ignore the whole point.

Your comparison was full of shit, dude. I called you on it, and now you're grasping.

The Christians taking over here would be like Disneyland compared to living under the Taliban. You know. I know it. Everyone here knows it.

Your comparison does not fly. It didn't fly when you first made it. And it doesn't fly now that you're making a bunch of secondary arguments.

This thread of cut/pasted red herring is silly.
Anyone familiar with association fallacy?
That's what you are doing here, asserting that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another - by simple association.
"In notation of First-order logic, the this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x∈S:φ(x))→ (∀x∈S:φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."

Posted by DevilC This thread of cut/pasted red herring is silly. Anyone familiar with association fallacy? That's what you are doing here, asserting that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another - by simple association. "In notation of First-order logic, the this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x∈S:φ(x))→ (∀x∈S:φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."

Exactly. Just because there's similarities between Christians and Muslims, or Christians and Hindus, or Muslims and Jews--or whatever--does NOT mean that living under one religion would be just as bad as living under another.

Comparing the Christians taking over here to the Taliban is silly. He knows it. He'd just rather try to fight his way out of the corner with a bunch of comparisons between them (which you could make with almost any religion), rather than just admit it was an over-the-top statement.

A Christian theocracy would suck balls. But it still wouldn't be like the Taliban.

Hey guys.... can you stop hijacking my thread now?

If you want to compare Muslims and Christians... make your own thread!

Anyone else have a comment on the article?

I have recently read several of the books, most recently American Theocracy.
It was a surprisingly good book.
As I see it, in simplistic terms:
Megachurches are making an upswing in many areas.
Fundamentalist Christianity is on the rise.
Christianity is inexorably tied to the Bush administration, more than any in recent memory.
Anything at all affiliated with the Bush administration is being vilified.

Posted by journeylady Hey guys.... can you stop hijacking my thread now? If you want to compare Muslims and Christians... make your own thread! Anyone else have a comment on the article?

Sure. It was a bad article that missed the point even more than Bunny Rabbit missed the point, like that movie Pearl Harbour missed the point. (had he actually read my post he might notice that I didn't disagree with his simplistic assertion that the US and A is better than afghanistan under the taliban - perhaps pulling one's christian apologist head out of one's christian apologist bunny hole would work. By the way: I didn't coin the term; it's in wide idomatic use - http://www.perrspe...atures/Taliban.htm - but I digress)

Christianity deserves no more merritt than any other dogmatic belief system based on untestable theories and obsolete ideology.

The religious right wants to close the separation of church and state and often reverts to special pleading and ad populum arguments to further thier cause a la wedge strategy and faith based initiatives which is just another name for government sanctioned religion. Changing the american pledgee of allegiance to add "one nation under god" or erecting ten commandments statues on courthouse lawns, and the scopes monkey trial are three good examples of this.

The secular objections to this are here misinterpreted by this buffoon as attack on christianity. If christians want freedom of religion they must accept others right to freedom from their religion. The real objection is to any religion being favoured and sanctioned with public money.

All of the books he mentions are a clear reaction to a growing evangelical christian political movement in the united states and at least one of those books is an attack on ALL religious beliefs.

More style than substance, little or no evidence and ignores reality and the truth on the ground in those united states.

Posted by tekriter Sure. It was a bad article that missed the point even more than Bunny Rabbit missed the point, like that movie Pearl Harbour missed the point. (had he actually read my post he might notice that I didn't disagree with his simplistic assertion that the US and A is better than afghanistan under the taliban - perhaps pulling one's christian apologist head out of one's christian apologist bunny hole would work. By the way: I didn't coin the term; it's in wide idomatic use - http://www.perrspe...atures/Taliban.htm - but I digress) Christianity deserves no more merritt than any other dogmatic belief system based on untestable theories and obsolete ideology. The religious right wants to close the separation of church and state and often reverts to special pleading and ad populum arguments to further thier cause a la wedge strategy and faith based initiatives which is just another name for government sanctioned religion. Changing the american pledgee of allegiance to add "one nation under god" or erecting ten commandments statues on courthouse lawns, and the scopes monkey trial are three good examples of this. The secular objections to this are here misinterpreted by this buffoon as attack on christianity. If christians want freedom of religion they must accept others right to freedom from their religion. The real objection is to any religion being favoured and sanctioned with public money. All of the books he mentions are a clear reaction to a growing evangelical christian political movement in the united states and at least one of those books is an attack on ALL religious beliefs. More style than substance, little or no evidence and ignores reality and the truth on the ground in those united states.

Dear Tekriter:

You compared Christian leaders to the Taliban. That was fucking retarded and made you look like a silly extremist.

Sincerely,

White Rabbit

Tektriter and White Rabbit appear to be quite learned on the subject in my estimate. Let's please stay away from mud slinging and keep this civil. Honestly I have heard from Tektriter how they are equivalent but have not heard from White Rabbit on how they would differ.

Personally I feel they would differ but only on certain minor points. It seems the similarities between the two are hard to ignore and would cause an equally oppressive though different outcome.

Back on topic though, the article:

1) Wrongly pleads that the separation between church and state is discrimination. A call for neutrality from our government does not represent discrimination against a group. If it discriminates, it does so equally against all groups.

2) Does not realize that Christians are in the majority so the harm of discrimination against them is far less impactful (if discrimination is occurring). That statement becomes more obvious if you use other majority and minority group comparisons. For instance if a white person calls a black person by a racial slur the black person would probably feel very violated. A black person calling a white person by a racial slur would cause the white person to either laugh it off or find it slightly disturbing. Rich/poor, politically powerful/politically unrepresented, white/black and so on. It is always the case that the effects of discrimination differ according to whether it is directed towards a minority or a majority group.

If lawyers in America were to form a white only group it would widen the racial gap. If lawyers were to form a black only group it would probably have close to no effect on the racial gap. I am not saying it is correct or should be done, as I feel both would be discrimination.

So for the Christian discrimination issue. If a Christian was discriminated against they can sit back and relax with the reassurance that they have a massive support network behind them. They are probably part of a church community, a business run by a Christian, the government celebrates Christian holidays, their government is Christian (sorry democrats are typically Christians also, just ask an atheist if they feel a Democrat represents their atheist outlook), and the people around them on the street are most likely Christian also. The impact though negative would not be that powerful. If however a Muslim in America was discriminated against they have very little to insulate them from the impact. They don't have a large religious community, they work for a business probably that is run by Christians, many of their friends are Christian and so forth. So the effect of discrimination against this minority Muslim would be much more powerful.

So although I will admit that some limited forms of discrimination against Christians might occur, the impact of that discrimination isn't that powerful.

3) At the beginning of the article it declares that the liberal left who is wrongly seen as atheistic or agnostic is declared akin to Hitler or Communism. So it wishes to showcase how Christians are being discriminated against by declaring that the fundamentalist right's opponents are basically the Third Reich or Stalin's army.

He states: "phase one of this war I describe is a propaganda blitzkrieg that is eerily reminiscent of how effectively the Goebbels propaganda machine softened up the German people for what was to come."

If Richard Dawkin's next book declares that the religious right should be placed in death camps I might believe this statement. Once I see abortion clinic protestors being gunned down in the streets, I might start believing this. As it stands though the comparison seems absurd.

4) The article wrongly leads people to believe that anti-Christian books are now drastically outnumbering the Christian books or anti other religion books coming from Christianity. I go to the book store and I see a whole section devoted to Christianity and books everywhere claiming that Islam is evil, that Muslim terrorists are everywhere, that atheists are corrupting the youth of the nation. Maybe we see through very different lenses but by my estimation the number of anti-Christian books is very limited.

Additionally these anti-Christian books are often anti-religious or anti-evangelical. They target either religion in general or a certain subsection of the Christian community.

5) The article writer is Jewish and a bizarre twist in this nation is that there has been an air of the Jews may not accept Jesus but they are still going to heaven. Jews are rarely discriminated against by the evangelical community. Though many Christian groups hold great contempt for them.

The author ends by once again claiming non-Bible believing individuals are bad people. This time they are warlike barbarians. Oh yeah and smoking bans are apparently discrimination against Christians also. That is odd because from what I hear all atheists and agnostics are also drug users. Seems like that might be a blow against those Satanic groupies.

In closing I will admit to one area that I have seen Christians get hammered on. Those who hold to the religious faith are less and less accepted in academic circles and their opinions are beginning to count for less in discussion. I will admit to this form of intellectual discrimination. It also seems that Christians will be discriminated against to a great level in this area in America. Schools wish to teach other cultures and their is no short supply of Bible scholars but Veda scholars are hard to come by. So Christians will naturally be excluded to a greater extent.

However I feel discrimination is the wrong word for it. It is simply hard to be a scientist or discuss findings if you deny evidence on the basis of faith. An academic is supposed to be neutral towards evidence and let the evidence speak for itself.

Posted by Cabiria Honestly I have heard from Tektriter how they are equivalent but have not heard from White Rabbit on how they would differ. Personally I feel they would differ but only on certain minor points. It seems the similarities between the two are hard to ignore and would cause an equally oppressive though different outcome.

Well, yeah, I did, but I can do it again.

In a Christian theocracy, abortion would be illegal and gay marriage would be banned forever. Homosexuality might be a criminal offense, but I doubt it. It would be a minor one if it were. Freedom of speech would be EXTREMELY restricted, with minor criminal penalties for disobeying. And Christianity would be taught in the schools, although there would be no criminal penalties for rejecting it.

In an Islamic theocracy, women have no rights. They can't walk about without a man, can't give testimony equal to a man's in trial, must remain covered, etc. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. Freedom of speech is extremely restricted, with criminal penalties up to and including death for disobeying. Islam is taught in schools, and the punishment for the "crime" of converting to another religion (or rejecting Islam) is death.

Seems to me one is quite a bit worse than the other. And that was the brief version.

Clearly this is true. Note how much effort he put into providing evidence and support for his thesis:

" "

There's the evidence. But....what do I know - I'm a silly extremist retard!

Posted by tekriter Clearly this is true. Note how much effort he put into providing evidence and support for his thesis:

I'll tell you what. You tell me what part of what I said about Islamic theocracies you think isn't true, and I'll Google up the proof so you can sleep tight tonight. Because everything I said about Islamic theocracies is spot on--the women's rights, the homosexual executions--all of it. But I ain't going to bother posting five pages of sources like *cough* someone until I know what you're disputing.

If you meant Christian theocracy... Well, I have no idea how I would even go about proving that I'm right about that, other than it being common fucking sense. But I'm relatively certain nobody here is crazy enough to think Christians want homosexuality to be punishable by death or to execute people who convert religions (and if they do think that about Christians, they have no fucking idea what they're talking about).

But....what do I know - I'm a silly extremist retard!

Well at least you're admitting it. That's progress. Now just work on not going completely overboard with your criticism (ie, no comparing people to Nazis, or the Taliban, or saying they're all abortion bombers) and nobody will ever have to know it. You can be a sleeper agent.

Posted by Cabiria 5) The article writer is Jewish and a bizarre twist in this nation is that there has been an air of the Jews may not accept Jesus but they are still going to heaven. Jews are rarely discriminated against by the evangelical community. Though many Christian groups hold great contempt for them.

I don't wish to appear argumentative - it's just that I am. I agree with you on most things and you have well stated your position. I respectfully disagree with your comment on the Jews - somewhat. Most christians do sympathize with the Jews, however many fundies do not. Look at the quote below from the president of the christian coalition - not some obscure wingnut!

Blood libels are accusations that Jews use human blood in religious rituals. Historically these are accusations that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted. These ideas are promulgated by evangelical fundies and white supremacist groups who have many documented connections. See Kingdom Coming Michelle Goldberg for a good discussion of this.

Other examples include:

The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel. "
--David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1984), p. 127

"I'd like for you to take - but your paper might not allow you to do it - and that is to take the Jewish element in the ACLU which is trying to drive Christianity out of the public place, and I'd like to see you do the something objective there. Because the ACLU is made up of a tremendous amount of Jewish attorneys." (Taped interview with the Los Angeles Times, November 14, 1990)

BILLY McCORMACK (Director of the Christian Coalition)

Eh, I've see that go both ways. I grew up in two different old-time Southern Baptist churches.

In one, Jews were held in a kind of weird esteem. They believed Jews were wrong about their religion, but they believed that Jews were God's chosen people and were blessed. Jews were seen like kinfolk, sort of.

In the other, Jews were looked at pretty much like any other religion--heathens. Nice enough people, but they were going to hell.

I have seen it both ways also. I think generally though Jews are accepted by Christians. There beliefs are too closely related for this not to be the case. Those Christian groups that hate them, I feel, are generally in the minority.

By Colum Lynch

Special to The Washington Post

Monday, June 17, 2002; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS -- Conservative U.S. Christian organizations have joined forces with Islamic governments to halt the expansion of sexual and political protections and rights for gays, women and children at United Nations conferences.

The new alliance, which coalesced during the past year, has received a major boost from the Bush administration, which appointed antiabortion activists to key positions on U.S. delegations to U.N. conferences on global economic and social policy.

But it has been largely galvanized by conservative Christians who have set aside their doctrinal differences, cemented ties with the Vatican and cultivated fresh links with a powerful bloc of more than 50 moderate and hard-line Islamic governments, including Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran. "We look at them as allies, not necessarily as friends," said Austin Ruse, founder and president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a New York-based organization that promotes conservative values at U.N. social conferences. "We have realized that without countries like Sudan, abortion would have been recognized as a universal human right in a U.N. document."

The alliance of conservative Islamic states and Christian organizations has placed the Bush administration in the awkward position of siding with some of its most reviled adversaries -- including Iraq and Iran -- in a cultural skirmish against its closest European allies, which broadly support expanding sexual and political rights.

U.S. and Iranian officials even huddled during coffee breaks at the U.N. summit on children in New York last month, according to U.N. diplomats. But the partnership also has provided the administration an opportunity to demonstrate that it shares many social values with Islam at a time when the United States is being criticized in the Muslim world for its continued support of Israel and the nine-month-old war on terrorism. "We have tried to point out there are some areas of agreement between [us] and a lot of Islamic countries on these social issues," a U.S. official said. "The main issue that brings us all together is defending the family values, the natural family," added Mokhtar Lamani, a Moroccan diplomat who represents the 53-nation Organization of Islamic Conferences at the United Nations. "The Republican administration is so clear in defending the family values."

Lamani said he was first approached by U.S. Christian non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, at a special session of the U.N. General Assembly on AIDS in New York in June 2001.

Liberal Western activists and governments, he said, had offended the religious and cultural sensitivities of Islamic countries by proposing that a final conference declaration include explicit references to the need to protect prostitutes, intravenous drug users and "men who have sex with men" from contracting AIDS.

"It was totally unacceptable for us," Lamani said. "The Vatican and so many NGOs came up to us saying this is exactly the same position we are defending."

The Islamic-Christian alliance claimed an important victory at the U.N. children's meeting last month.

The Bush administration led the coalition in blocking an effort by European and Latin American countries to include a reference in the final declaration to "reproductive health care services," a term the conservatives believed could be used to promote abortion. The U.S. team included John Klink, a former adviser to the Vatican at previous U.N. conferences; Janice Crouse, a veteran antiabortion advocate at Concerned Women of America; and Paul J. Bonicelli of Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va., a Christian institution that requires its professors teach creationism.

The Christian groups and Islamic countries have been seeking to build on those gains at subsequent U.N. gatherings, pressing for greater restrictions on abortion at an annual meeting of the World Health Organization last month and later at a U.N. preparatory conference on sustainable development in Bali, Indonesia.

"The rest of the world saw a shift in the debate" at the children's summit, said Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy group. "It wasn't just pure defense. They are on the offensive here." Some Western countries and liberal activists say they are alarmed by the influence of the Christian right at the United Nations, where more liberal women's rights organizations have held sway for the past decade. "They are trying to undo some of the landmark agreements that were reached in the 1990s, particularly on women's rights and family planning," a U.N.-based European diplomat said. "The U.S. decision to come into the game on their side has completely changed the dynamics."

"This alliance shows the depths of perversity of the [U.S.] position," said Adrienne Germaine, president of the International Women's Health Coalition. "On the one hand we're presumably blaming these countries for unspeakable acts of terrorism, and at the same time we are allying ourselves with them in the oppression of women."

The World Policy Center, a Mormon group established in 1997 to promote family values through an alliance that includes conservative Christians, the Catholic Church and Islamic governments, is holding a conference next month at Brigham Young University School of Law. It will bring antiabortion advocates and legal critics of the United Nations together with more than 60 U.N. diplomats, including delegates from conservative Catholic and Islamic countries.

Ruse first outlined his strategy for maximizing the conservatives' leverage at the United Nations at a 1999 meeting in Geneva of the World Congress of Families, a gathering of advocates of conservative family values. It involves "lavish[ing] all our attention" on a coalition of 12 antiabortion countries that are willing to fight for their cause at U.N. sessions, he said. Religious leaders and politicians in the United States and in these select countries in the developing world should be persuaded "to encourage these governments to defend life and family at the United Nations."

He also boasted that his tactics were beginning to seize the initiative from advocates for the rights of children, women and gays. "Our team was in a tiny conference room leaning over the backs of diplomats, assisting with the drafting of the conference document," he said. "We broke all the rules of U.N. lobbying, which forbids leafleting on the floor of a U.N. conference. We had our people fan out across the floor of the conference and we placed this letter in the hand of every delegate."

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Posted by tekriter Note how much effort he put into providing evidence and support for his thesis:

Gah! You are too much. This is all hypothetical, but talking about those two belief systems (Christianity and Islam) doesn't need evidence - if you know how the religion works, then it's easy to imagine how they'd make the rules if they could.


I'm really curious how you have the free time AND interest to sit and continually write books on this subject.

talking about those two belief systems (Christianity and Islam) doesn't need evidence - if you know how the religion works, then it's easy to imagine how they'd make the rules if they could.

Yet another way they are similar. Who needs evidence!

Posted by katwoman I'm really curious how you have the free time AND interest to sit and continually write books on this subject.

There is a difference between RESEARCH and dumping whatever you googled into paragraph format.

Unless you are a true believer, living in anyones theocracy would be a world of shit. And both religions discussed in the above examples have long records of killing people that don't follow the rules their as dictated by their invisible friend. So the biggest difference between the two is islamofachists,having absolute power in their countries, get to kill people right now. And christofachists, once in absolute power (which still corrupts absolutely) will be killing people then.

Now, lets go back to the article. There is a good bit too much conspiracy in it for me. Publishers print what sells. Could be that picking on the faith of an unpopular president is what is making money for everyone in publishing that wishes they had gotten J.K. Rowlings.