If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Michelle Bachmann, Pam Geller and the anti-Muslim fringe have won   (salon.com) divider line 143
    More: Sad, Pam Geller, Fox News, muslims, American Sociological Review, Ground Zero Mosque, psychological research, perverse incentives, cultural change  
•       •       •

20564 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 7:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-05 10:30:46 PM

spmkk: TFA: "Muslim leaders are often angrier about terrorism than anyone else because they have to defend themselves on a daily basis, he said, but they don't let that anger show in public."


THIS. This is the problem. THIS is why people don't get taken seriously when they assert that most Muslims oppose terrorism.

Muslim leaders should be angry about terrorism NOT because it paints them in a bad light, but because people who subscribe to the religious/cultural institution of which they are leaders are f'ing killing people. And no - it's NOT enough to be privately, quietly "angry". (If you get angry at something that a child in your kindergarten does but don't speak up and tell the class that his actions were wrong, it will have no effect on their perception of his behavior and so the value of your anger is nil -- no matter how much you claim to feel it.)

So long as Muslim leaders are "angry" about terrorism because it's inconvenient and not because it's abhorrent, and as long as they keep quiet instead of speaking out and setting an example for their followers, people have every legitimate right to their skepticism/cynicism about the attitudes of the Muslim community at large toward terrorism.


That whole "flock of sheep" metaphor is NOT an accident -- religion is designed to drill passivity into the members, or at best passive-aggressiveness, an absolute adherence to a leader. He was probably raised to be a good little Muslim boy, just like good little Christian boys and girls shouldn't question or speak against their parents, their leaders, their peers, and especially their God. Alphas and sociopaths have taken advantage of that since the dawn of time.
 
2012-12-05 10:31:54 PM
Gellar,Gaffney,Lieberman,Perle,Abrams and the rest of the Neocon Zionist Nazis can all go DIAF
 
2012-12-05 10:34:39 PM
trivial use of my dark powers replied to me:

As noted above, the UMC is fully and firmly on board in denying church office and full recognition to "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." Most Methodists I've met are nice enough and would not condone queerbashing, and there is a growing minority within the church to scrap the anti-gay stuff, but the enlightened position has not yet gained formal official acceptance by any General Conference.


tuomdp: I'm sorry; I wasn't clear. They don't accept gays, but since they don't publically screech about the hell-boundedness of gays every chance they get, they're suspect to the fundies.

Sorry, I didn't mean that as a flame or even an argument, just an excuse to show off how farking erudite and generally gol'danged brilliant I really truly am. And you're right: the United Methodist Church doesn't go in for public "controversy" of any kind, including the gay thing, and the Methodists I've met since being raised that way have led me to believe the church culture is "Let's everybody be nice." For one thing I've never been able to troll a UMC preacher into a theological argument: they'll just smile and say something like "What you say is contrary to what most Methodists believe but I'm not going to argue with you." That and the Methodist church ladies I've met can surely cook.

That's what I get for being lazy.
 
2012-12-05 10:35:35 PM

jmadisonbiii: I'd wager that Nidal Hasan did more to harm the Muslim cause than Michelle Bachmann ever could.


What's "the Muslim cause?" I thought we were talking about basic religious liberties.
 
2012-12-05 11:16:51 PM
This post should have a HERO tag.
 
2012-12-05 11:16:54 PM

Hickory-smoked: jmadisonbiii: I'd wager that Nidal Hasan did more to harm the Muslim cause than Michelle Bachmann ever could.

What's "the Muslim cause?" I thought we were talking about basic religious liberties.


Death to infidels.
 
2012-12-05 11:35:07 PM

The One True TheDavid: Kittypie070: The One True TheDavid: lots of homosexual dogs redacted

Oh, also I found it interesting that you came into a Muslims AAGH thread with....teh gheys.

In case you didn't quite happen to notice, the thread is not about ghey people.

Did you notice that in that comment I was replying to a comment mentioning the Methodist's tolerance of gays?

Was it your ex-husband that came out or your son?


Who? What?

Here. Try my bigger Zippo.
 
2012-12-05 11:37:56 PM
Anti-Muslim attitudes are now much higher than they were immediately following 9/11.

As well they should be. Right after 9/11 I went along with the 'its just the extremists and the terrorists', but my opinion of Islam now could not be any lower. I may not like the Christians, and I may consider what they promote disgusting, but they don't fly in to violent rampages and riots at the drop of a hat. I'm tired of being told that I have to be sensitive of the feelings of Muslims when they don't give a good damn about the feelings of anyone else. With them, it's "It's our way or a violent rampage", and you know what I say?

I say, screw you and your bronze age bullshiat. We're going to have free speech, and that includes the speech that insults, belittles and denigrates your backwards barbaric belief system, and if you don't like it that's just fine but if you start going on little rampages to get your way somebody needs to beat you freaking senseless until the only thing you will say is "Yes, you have the right to say that as much as we don't like it".

Incidentally, there is no such thing as Islamophobia. Wake up and look at the world around you.

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.

There is nothing disproportionate or irrational about taking a look at the actions of Muslims all over the world and being disgusted by them. That's called common sense.
 
2012-12-05 11:39:18 PM
And we have nothing to fear from these Muslim nutbags? Time to bring the wrath of the Lord down on their heads.
 
2012-12-05 11:48:31 PM

Tumunga: So, now the Fark libby athiests are now religeous. I get it.


No, no, I'm pretty sure you don't.
 
2012-12-05 11:51:20 PM
 
2012-12-05 11:54:45 PM

Kittypie070: The One True TheDavid: lots of homosexual dogs redacted

Oh, also I found it interesting that you came into a Muslims AAGH thread with....teh gheys.

In case you didn't quite happen to notice, the thread is not about ghey people.


The One True TheDavid just can't stop talking about homosexuality. Dirty, nasty, wicked, yummy homoGAYsexuality. Those naughty, naughty gay boys should be punished for their wicked behavior.

/He'll be in his bunk.
 
2012-12-05 11:59:19 PM

FlashHarry: farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.


Exactly! That's why we all hate the Nazis, even to this day, 80 years later. Because they were what color?

Oh, they were caucasians? oops, kind of screws YOUR theory up
 
2012-12-06 12:03:19 AM

Mrbogey: They win because when you portray the anti-sharia side as being anti-Muslim what do you expect?

Shariah law has some pretty brutal allowances. I don't understand how people who criticize the crazy things that orthodox Jews do try and concern troll over disdain for the crazy things permitted under Shariah.


Whether it's dogshiat, pigshiat, or chickenshiat, I'd rather not eat any of it.
 
2012-12-06 12:03:29 AM
Convert or die, that was, is, and always will be the message of the prophet Mohammed. Even if you run into a group of "decent", moderate/secular Muslims, they will likely allow the leadership to make non-Muslims into second-class citizens, and how many generations before the moderates die off or are forcibly replaced by violent ones?

When Muslims outnumber you, you need to be afraid. They kill their own. Therefore they won't hesitate to kill you if it comes down to it. Every country where there has been an "Arab Spring" has now seen the extremists make a power grab. Every. One.

In Egypt, a country that has had a decades-long uneasy truce with the tolerated Christian Orthodox minority, the current power-grabbing Ultra-conservatives have taken more power than they agreed to, and have completely written the Christians out of all governance and government protection. It's only a matter of time before the previously thinly veiled hostilities turn into a run for exterminations. It happened in Sudan. It's happening in Iraq. Syria is a freaking free-for all. The asshole Serbs were so tired of the Bosnians shiat that they went Medieval on their asses and tried to kill them all (way to follow the Bible guys!) but after the whole Ottoman oppression, it's easy to see how it came to that, even if their return murders were equally wrong.

This will never end until conservative Islam is erased forever.
 
2012-12-06 12:05:22 AM

thespindrifter: Convert or die, that was, is, and always will be the message of the prophet Mohammed. Even if you run into a group of "decent", moderate/secular Muslims, they will likely allow the leadership to make non-Muslims into second-class citizens, and how many generations before the moderates die off or are forcibly replaced by violent ones?

When Muslims outnumber you, you need to be afraid. They kill their own. Therefore they won't hesitate to kill you if it comes down to it. Every country where there has been an "Arab Spring" has now seen the extremists make a power grab. Every. One.

In Egypt, a country that has had a decades-long uneasy truce with the tolerated Christian Orthodox minority, the current power-grabbing Ultra-conservatives have taken more power than they agreed to, and have completely written the Christians out of all governance and government protection. It's only a matter of time before the previously thinly veiled hostilities turn into a run for exterminations. It happened in Sudan. It's happening in Iraq. Syria is a freaking free-for all. The asshole Serbs were so tired of the Bosnians shiat that they went Medieval on their asses and tried to kill them all (way to follow the Bible guys!) but after the whole Ottoman oppression, it's easy to see how it came to that, even if their return murders were equally wrong.

This will never end until conservative Islam is erased forever.


What makes you think "it" will end then?
 
2012-12-06 12:15:00 AM

neilio42: Is this the thread where we say tolerance and acceptance are good qualities and then wish death upon people?


DEATH TO ALL INTOLERANT PEOPLE !!@@!#!@#!@#
 
2012-12-06 12:16:08 AM

jso2897: What makes you think "it" will end then?


I have neighbors who are moderates. They give me hope; they believe in Allah, but are terrible Muslims by strict standards (smoke, occasionally drink, but they try to keep the other laws.) They are fantastic, caring, giving, wonderful people. Because they are "bad" Muslims, they're awesome human beings. It's a shame that it's that way, but I trust people like them to be decent. Just because 5/6 of their family were murdered by "christians" they haven't used that as an excuse to hate me. They don't try to convert me either; they just want to be good people, and who can get mad at anyone for that? As long as they choose to be good citizens and keep their ways to themselves, and I do the same, it's all good. Its the assholes like the power-mad Imams and Jerry Falwell types that stir shiat up and start the problems. If it came down to it, I'd be good with killing a Falwell for every Imam my neighbors would take out, but I know no one could ever agree on how to make that happen, so I'm okay with us the way we are now, as long as they agree to keep it that way. Secular rule of law with religious input, but controlled by common sense absolutes across the board and the current limitations seems to be working for all of us now, so why screw with that? If the Muslims don't like it they can go back to a Sharia country and make changes there if they grow tired of the bullshiat. It worked for us, and it wish it would work for them.
 
2012-12-06 12:33:06 AM
The problem with this idea that somehow there are "good" muslims/christians/adherents of any religion and "bad" whatevers is that it's wrong. Religion isn't inherently good or bad. Religion is what it is. This concept that there are "good" Muslims who like America and "bad" Muslims who want to destroy America, or "hate us for our freedumz" is just the latest gloss on a really old idea, which is that the "good" whoevers are the ones that agree with "us" and the "bad" whoevers are the ones we're over there fighting and if only the "bad" ones were all gone, we could deal with the "good" ones. It's not a new idea.

Unfortunately, this idea that somehow the "bad" Muslims are the only ones who oppose American intrusion into their countries and American influence in their culture and Westernization of their beliefs isn't just an oversimplification; it means that anyone who presents any opposition at all gets tossed in the "bad" camp, no matter how reasonable and non-violent their opposition is. This tends to prevent any diplomatic resolution of conflict, and means that unless they agree with us, they are de facto "bad". It's just the same COMMIE BAD! NON-COMMIE GOOD! dichotomy that drove our foreign policy in the Cold War, or the Christians vs. Infidels that drove the Crusades. And the same inflexible good vs. bad that drives Israeli/Palestinian "diplomacy" too, and has nothing to do with religion.

Religion isn't the cause. It's just a handy excuse or hook to hang the conflict on. As long as anyone who resents American intrusion into Iran gets tossed into the "bad Muslim" basket, (because they oppose us, ergo, they are bad Muslims) there can't be any reasonable discussion of why a "good" Muslim might have legitimate grievances. It all gets masked by the religious nonsense. Just like 150 years ago, the reasonable discussion of why the "good" Indians might not like the British ordering them around in their own country got masked by the religious nonsense of the grease on the musket cartridges that led to the Sepoy Mutiny (caused by those "bad" Indians and their silly religious notions). Or like 900 years ago, reasonable discussion about whether Genoan seaports in Palestine could be taxed by Saladin got overrun by the Crusades. It was nothing to do with religion. If it did, the 4th Crusade would not have ended with a bunch of Christian knights sacking the Christian city of Constantinople.
 
2012-12-06 12:34:13 AM

thespindrifter: Convert or die, that was, is, and always will be the message of the prophet Mohammed. Even if you run into a group of "decent", moderate/secular Muslims, they will likely allow the leadership to make non-Muslims into second-class citizens, and how many generations before the moderates die off or are forcibly replaced by violent ones?

When Muslims outnumber you, you need to be afraid. They kill their own. Therefore they won't hesitate to kill you if it comes down to it.


Turkey? Indonesia? Both democracies with Muslim majorities. Indonesia has significant minorities who aren't Muslim. Turkey is a NATO ally. They are not Arab Spring countries, by they are not barbaric Muslim regimes.

Libya and Tunisia so far haven't gone over the extremist cliff, and they are both front and center in the Arab Spring. It certainly hasn't been a smooth process in either country, and there are extremist elements most certainly present. However, the reaction after the attack on the American consulate in Libya by the people there was not a concert of Death to America protests. Quite the opposite. There were demonstrations against extremists (and mobs overrunning extremist hold outs and demanding that they be disarmed) and demonstrations expressing sorrow for the deaths of the Americans.

I'm certainly not a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood as I'm not a fan of any fundamentalist religious movements which which to impose their religion the government and the people through the government. However, it is still to be seen exactly what Morsi and his type will do in Egypt. He has not yet gone all Islamist on his people and country. He still could, but that's not what has happened yet. It's disappointing to see the Islamists doing the writing of the new constitution, but it is yet to be seen how they will govern. Moderate Islamists have been in control of the government in our NATO ally Turkey for some years now, and they haven't yet gone extremist. Again, if I were a Turkish citizen I certainly wouldn't be voting for a religious party (just like I won't vote for Republicans for much the same reason), but they are freely elected, and they haven't been going extremist as of now.

But yes, there are certainly very backward, religiously fundamentalist governments in the Muslim world (although, the secular dictatorships are disappearing even though it's not clear with what they will be replaced). There are strange monarchs such as the Saudis who are pretty worldly yet allow religious fundamentalist principles rule they day in their lands. So certainly not utopia.

One of the amusing things though is to watch the religious, conservative wing in the US react in horror and anger at the election in Egypt of the religious, conservative wing.
 
2012-12-06 01:00:50 AM

thespindrifter: jso2897: What makes you think "it" will end then?

I have neighbors who are moderates. They give me hope; they believe in Allah, but are terrible Muslims by strict standards (smoke, occasionally drink, but they try to keep the other laws.) They are fantastic, caring, giving, wonderful people. Because they are "bad" Muslims, they're awesome human beings. It's a shame that it's that way, but I trust people like them to be decent. Just because 5/6 of their family were murdered by "christians" they haven't used that as an excuse to hate me. They don't try to convert me either; they just want to be good people, and who can get mad at anyone for that? As long as they choose to be good citizens and keep their ways to themselves, and I do the same, it's all good. Its the assholes like the power-mad Imams and Jerry Falwell types that stir shiat up and start the problems. If it came down to it, I'd be good with killing a Falwell for every Imam my neighbors would take out, but I know no one could ever agree on how to make that happen, so I'm okay with us the way we are now, as long as they agree to keep it that way. Secular rule of law with religious input, but controlled by common sense absolutes across the board and the current limitations seems to be working for all of us now, so why screw with that? If the Muslims don't like it they can go back to a Sharia country and make changes there if they grow tired of the bullshiat. It worked for us, and it wish it would work for them.


So in other words, you have no response to what I asked you? If it pleases you to fall for this shiat, by all means, do so. It's like the "Obammy gonna take yer guns" shiat. Keep the stupid trailer trash worrying about Ahkmed down at the Seven Eleven instead of the ruling class who are farking their assholes bloody as we speak. Keep the stupids thinkin' about anything but who is REALLY screwing them.
America's real enemies wear nice suits, and have nice, white, smiling faces. They are stabbing you in the back right now, and stealing your heritage and your children's future - and, naturally, they want your dumb ass to be afraid of some f**king goatherd. And you buy it.
Dumbass. Worry about your REAL enemies. Don't be a gullible, stupid sucker.
 
2012-12-06 01:16:40 AM

The One True TheDavid: If anybody knows of a mainline Protestant denomination other than the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that does officially ordain "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" and even marry them to each other please inform me.


The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is pretty ok with gays.
 
2012-12-06 01:32:42 AM
Seems that many folks who follow the "Judeo-Christian tradition" (or whatever the fark the evangelicals are calling it these days) have manged to terrorize plenty of innocent people too. What's our excuse?

Shock n' awe
 
2012-12-06 01:42:45 AM

jso2897: It's like the "Obammy gonna take yer guns" shiat. Keep the stupid trailer trash worrying about Ahkmed down at the Seven Eleven instead of the ruling class who are farking their assholes bloody as we speak. Keep the stupids thinkin' about anything but who is REALLY screwing them.


i159.photobucket.com

Need to add "Muslims" to Otis's list of imaginary "guys who are ruining my life" list
 
2012-12-06 02:17:24 AM

thespindrifter: large quantities of Muslims


lol.
 
2012-12-06 02:25:59 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Why do Republicans hate America?


"This isn't simply a story about Fox News being Fox News," Bail told Salon. Rather, it extends to all mainstream media outlets."

You were saying?
 
2012-12-06 03:24:10 AM
Muslims hating Christians, Christians hating Muslims. They both worship the same god and they both think he is on their side. If I may be allowed to quote a well known sage..."Get A Brain! Morans!"
 
2012-12-06 05:13:58 AM

meatsack_01: See these Islamic radicals for what they are, animals. Filthy vermin to be taken out to the back 40 and put down. They'd kill you just for not worshiping Mohammad.


Know how I can tell that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about Islam?
 
2012-12-06 07:54:59 AM

WorldCitizen: I'm certainly not a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood as I'm not a fan of any fundamentalist religious movements which which to impose their religion the government and the people through the government. However, it is still to be seen exactly what Morsi and his type will do in Egypt. He has not yet gone all Islamist on his people and country. He still could, but that's not what has happened yet. It's disappointing to see the Islamists doing the writing of the new constitution, but it is yet to be seen how they will govern. Moderate Islamists have been in control of the government in our NATO ally Turkey for some years now, and they haven't yet gone extremist. Again, if I were a Turkish citizen I certainly wouldn't be voting for a religious party (just like I won't vote for Republicans for much the same reason), but they are freely elected, and they haven't been going extremist as of now.


Morsi hasn't gone all Islamist because he doesn't have the power to do that. The constitution that is being drawn up is certainly a step in that direction.

Same with Turkey. They have been steadily marching in that direction.

As for the article, I don't think you can say any of those buffoons have won. They stir up some morons but their claims of MB infiltration in the govt are ignored. Biggest "accomplishment" was anti-sharia laws which were rightly tossed out.
 
2012-12-06 08:45:11 AM

KillerAttackParrot: You do realize that the first time Constantinople fell it was to the Christian 4th Crusade? The ignorance of people never ceases to amaze me.


Yeah, sorry about that, but it's one of Venice's long campaign victory conditions, and the opportunity was too good to pass up. Besides, the Mongols were coming, and that's a good place to stop 'em.
 
2012-12-06 08:55:35 AM

somedude210: NPR's hourly news reports are pretty unbias. BBC is fairly unbiased. They'll ask questions, but their intent seems to be more about what the story actually is, than trying to make a story out of nothing


I agree. I have conservative friend who screams frequently that NPR is the most liberal of all news outlets (remember Newt Grinch's campaign to shut them down). I listen to them quite a bit, and although a reporter such as Robert Siegel may be liberal the network seems to go to significant lengths to show both sides of any story equally.

No Rush, O'Reilly, or even Stewarts there, at least not on the air during the morning or afternooon commutes.
 
2012-12-06 09:20:53 AM
How is this sad subby? Would anyone here really want to live under sharia? Its like saying you want to live in nazi germany. How can a liberal site like salon and fark not see the eveil that is sharia?
 
2012-12-06 09:30:49 AM

Joe Blowme: How is this sad subby? Would anyone here really want to live under sharia? Its like saying you want to live in nazi germany. How can a liberal site like salon and fark not see the eveil that is sharia?


Nobody is defending Sharia.

The point is that making laws banning it is, best case, redundant because of the first or worst case illegal because of the first (singling out one religion).

It is scare mongering.
 
2012-12-06 09:51:07 AM

The One True TheDavid: trivial use of my dark powers: Diogenes: FlashHarry: farking assholes. i'm no fan of religion - any religion. but i think their hatred is based more in racism than religion. if most muslims were white, i doubt we'd be having this conversation.

I think you're being too forgiving. Race and color aren't helping in the case of Muslims. But there's no limit to their intolerance and outright hate. Crap, alot of them don't even think Methodists are true Protestants.

Yeah. Methodists haven't signed on for burning the homogheys yet, so they're suspect.

AHEM.

From the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

¶ 304.3

While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. [emp. mine] Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals1 are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.2
1. "Self-avowed practicing homosexual" is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual. See Judicial Council Decisions 702, 708, 722, 725, 764, 844, 984.
2. See Judicial Council Decisions 984, 985.


This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons. But anyway.

As noted above, the UMC is full ...


The New Testament repeatedly records that when a believer was baptized, the believer's whole household was baptized (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16). Nowhere does the New Testament record, or even suggest, that any Christian family delayed the baptism of their children until they could make their own profession of faith. Jesus' words, "Let the little children come to me, do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs" (Mark 10:14b), tell us that our Lord has expressly given to little children a place among the people of God, which holy privilege must not be denied them.
 
2012-12-06 10:08:43 AM

liam76: Joe Blowme: How is this sad subby? Would anyone here really want to live under sharia? Its like saying you want to live in nazi germany. How can a liberal site like salon and fark not see the eveil that is sharia?

Nobody is defending Sharia.

The point is that making laws banning it is, best case, redundant because of the first or worst case illegal because of the first (singling out one religion).

It is scare mongering.


Thats like saying rattle snakes are dangerous and dont go near them is scaremongering? I guess we have a different opinion of what scaremongering is. If it is for something real, i dont have a problem with being told it is dangerous. Like someone warning me about the KKK or NAMBLA.

"Tolerance of evil is a crime"
 
2012-12-06 10:45:20 AM

The One True TheDavid: Ennuipoet:

dickfreckle:

It's disturbing how the press has dropped the ball in recent years, treating every wingnut as if they're an expert on the chosen topic. Since when have we been presenting "all sides" when that means tacitly suggesting that the 2+2=13 crowd has as valid a point as those who believe 2+2=4?

They do it because the press is the now the "Media" and the "Media" is big business. The "Media" lets morans like this have their own soapbox because people watch it. Those of us who think they are evil, idiot farks watch it because we hate them. Those who think like the evil idiot farks watch it because it validates their evil idiot farkery.

I don't own a TV or listen to talk radio, nor do I regularly read the mainstream press. Most of the time my sense of what Americans are supposed to "know" and regard as important is supplied by Fark, by the articles linked to and the discussions they provoke. E.g. I've never seen a single Lindsay Lo'an vehicle, nor have I wittingly listened to anything by Baldy Spears or Hannah Montana. So of course I have no idea who Michelle Bachman and Pam Geller are except that "liberal" Farkers dislike them.

Too bad for y'all that the vast majority of you repeatedly discount my opinions and even my right to opine because my perspective doesn't fit the "Reality" you get from TV. Oh well. At least it's free. 

PS: Farking while drunk is fun. But it takes TWO hands.


"TeeVee" is a nickname. Nicknames are for friends...
 
2012-12-06 10:50:05 AM

garron: SirEattonHogg:

Interesting. Except the above poster so far, it's like all the fark atheists who were posting pretty loudly in the Charlie Brown Christmas thread suddenly just disappeared. I thought any possible attempt by religion to mix with government is wrong (Sharia would be that situation - the govt would accomodate it as a legal system within our secular legal system) no matter if it's Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc. etc.

I think that American atheists hate Christians (and maybe Jews) first. Islam hates these people also. So - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They won't hate on Islam but they sadly don't realize Islamists will kill them for their position once in complete power or they just don't think they could gain that much power. Europe is a good example of how wrong they are and they still don't see it.


Interesting. How long have you been in contact with the lizard people?
 
2012-12-06 11:00:47 AM

Joe Blowme: liam76: Joe Blowme: How is this sad subby? Would anyone here really want to live under sharia? Its like saying you want to live in nazi germany. How can a liberal site like salon and fark not see the eveil that is sharia?

Nobody is defending Sharia.

The point is that making laws banning it is, best case, redundant because of the first or worst case illegal because of the first (singling out one religion).

It is scare mongering.

Thats like saying rattle snakes are dangerous and dont go near them is scaremongering? I guess we have a different opinion of what scaremongering is. If it is for something real, i dont have a problem with being told it is dangerous. Like someone warning me about the KKK or NAMBLA.

"Tolerance of evil is a crime"


Writing anti-sharia laws becasue muslims are moving in is like writing anti-KKK laws because whites are moving in.

Yes sharia backed by law is wrong, but we already have legal protection, and it is stupid to petend just because muslims are there that sharia is coming.
 
2012-12-06 11:57:47 AM

namatad: neilio42: Is this the thread where we say tolerance and acceptance are good qualities and then wish death upon people?DEATH TO ALL INTOLERANT PEOPLE !!@@!#!@#!@#


www.mattfind.com

"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
 
2012-12-06 12:21:00 PM
[voice of Lewis Black:] "Arabs who decapitate people in the name of God, or racist j.a.p. divorce court buccaneers? Who is the ROOT.....OF.....ALL....EEEEEVIL?"
 
2012-12-06 01:07:32 PM

The One True TheDavid: COMALite J: The One True TheDavid: trivial use of my dark powers: Diogenes: FlashHarry: ...

This, the fact that they refuse to admit that Jesus of Nazareth was fully human and only adopted by God after his baptism by John on the Jordan River, and their heinous papist practice of "baptising" infants who cannot know what is happening let alone accept it, are why I view them as heretics. And don't give me that Paul nonsense: the so-called Epistles of Paul, the Book of Acts and the "Gospel" of John are spurious later accretions canonized for Roman political reasons....

What about the Gospel of Luke, written by the author of the Book of Acts?

Prove it. And you do know there's more than one Paul, right?

The synoptic gospels are really just versions redactions of the long-vanished Gospel of the Hebrews, with a bit of inevitable local flavor.This is in keeping with the pro-Roman church fathers' decision to view earlier Judaizing gospels as noncanonical or heretical, by which they meant they encouraged doctrines that too closely resembled the Judaism that the Church was adamantly and vociferously declaring its difference from. The Jewish faith could never be the ideological glue of of a pagan Empire, unlike its Hejazi offspring.


Gospel of the Hebrews? Prove it.

As for Luke = Acts:
The Gospel According to Saint
LUKE


CHAPTER 1

MANY have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled¹ among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

CHAPTER 24

50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them.
51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.
52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.
53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.


The
ACTS

of the Apostles
CHAPTER 1

IN my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
• Okay, right off the bat, we see that both books are addressed to ‶Theophilus" (who may have been a specific person, or the author′s generic name for any ‶friend of God" [the literal meaning of that Greek name]). No other Bible books are addressed to Theophilus.

• The Gospel According to Luke ends with Jesus being taken up into Heaven (none of the other Canonical Gospels actually show this, unless you count the long ending to Mark [starting with 16:9] which most scholars now recognize as a spurious later addition, as it does not exist in the older manuscripts and does not match the style of the rest of the book). and Acts begins with its author telling Theophilus that his former book ended with precisely that, covering exactly what the Gospel According to Luke actually does cover.

• The author(s) of both books is/are (an/both) elitist scholar(s) with (an) inflated opinion(s) of his/their own competence as (an) historian(s). Luke's author starts out effectively claiming that his ‶careful investigation of everything" made his ‶orderly account" superior to the similar works of actual ‶eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

And yet, the actual historical competence of both books are lacking. Luke's author starts right off after that introduction claiming that Elizabeth, wife of Zacharias, became pregnant with John the Baptist while Herod the Great still ruled Judea. Yet, before that chapter is over, Mary is also pregnant with Jesus, and visits Elizabeth while John is still in her womb, who leaps for joy in said womb at the approach of the at least embryonic if not fetal Savior and His mother. In the very next chapter, just as Jesus is about to be born, Luke says that this is happening while Quirinius was governor of Syria and during the taxation census Cæsar Augustus. Indeed, this was the whole reason that the Holy Family left Nazareth and went to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there according to the author of Luke! And yet, we know from history that Herod died in 4 B.C.E. (death marked by an eclipse, and we can time those to the fraction of a second accuracy millennia into the past or future), that his passing allowed his incompetent son Archelaus to ascend to the throne (as Matthew's author specifically mentions), and he reigned for a full decade before the merchants and other wealthy citizens had had enough of his horrific mismanagement of the economy and appealed to Cæsar Augustus, who deposed him and had Quirinius institute the taxation census to determine who owed what to whom. Sorry, but pregnancies last nine months, not ten years.

Luke's author also has the men of Nazareth later attempt to execute Jesus by ‶[taking] him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff." As you can verify for yourself by pointing Google Earth at ‶Nazareth, Israel" with Terrain View on and no exaggeration, while the Old City of Nazareth is indeed built on a plateau, it has gently sloping sides and no cliffs ― certainly none high and steep enough that the people living there would honestly believe, likely from experience, that anyone hurled from it would have near-zero chance of survival (or what would be the point of trying to execute Him that way?).

There are many more such examples.

The author of Acts is, of course, best buds with Paul. Indeed, the whole structure of Acts appears to be about the transfer of the leadership of the primitive Christian Church from Peter to Paul. Paul does an analogous miracle for each and every miracle that Peter earlier does in that book, in the same order (seven miracles for each).

And yet, the author of Acts thinks that he knows Paul′s own origin story better than Paul himself does, despite later quoting Paul′s own account thereof twice in his own book! In his own account in Acts 9, he says that the men which journeyed with Paul stood speechless in fear because they heard a voice but saw no man. But when Paul twice recounts this story in later chapters of Acts (e.g. 22:9) and the author of Acts records his account, he contradicts both points: Paul says that he and his companions had all fallen to the ground, and that they were afraid because they saw the light but heard not the Voice!

These are the same sorts of textual analysis that you′d use to claim multiple Pauls and that the Synoptic Gospels are from the Gospel of the Hebrews.
 
2012-12-06 03:58:09 PM
Is this the thread where we exempt muslims from being treated like the ignorant scum religious people are? Fark the muslims. Fark the Christians. They are both vile. I don't understand why so many of you rush to defend only one of the groups when they are both the same.
 
2012-12-07 11:33:39 AM

umad: Is this the thread where we exempt muslims from being treated like the ignorant scum religious people are? Fark the muslims. Fark the Christians. They are both vile. I don't understand why so many of you rush to defend only one of the groups when they are both the same.


Because, for those of us in the United States, we have freedom of religion.
 
Displayed 43 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report