[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement.
Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Conservative christian (I refuse to capitalize the word) churches and media outlets like the 700 Club are doing this every day. You're not killing people, but you're essentially creating millions of zealots who will do nothing to solve the world's biggest problems when they grow old enough to have that potential. Their primary concern is "being saved", and they are taught to see the earth has a place to be left behind in favour of the platonic view of heaven in the sky. A person who won't spread awareness about world issues (many of which are religious issues which they will be blind to) and/or do a little something to help solve them is nothing but a self-serving person. In the grand scheme of things, from the viewpoint of doing better for this world outside of themselves, these people been mentally killed by means of indoctrination.
Okay, I'll get flamed for this... but I'm prepared.
Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Conservative christian (I refuse to capitalize the word) churches and media outlets like the 700 Club are doing this every day. You're not killing people, but you're essentially creating millions of zealots who will do nothing to solve the world's biggest problems when they grow old enough to have that potential. Their primary concern is "being saved", and they are taught to see the earth has a place to be left behind in favour of the platonic view of heaven in the sky. A person who won't spread awareness about world issues (many of which are religious issues which they will be blind to) and/or do a little something to help solve them is nothing but a self-serving person. In the grand scheme of things, from the viewpoint of doing better for this world outside of themselves, these people been mentally killed by means of indoctrination.
Okay, I'll get flamed for this... but I'm prepared.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Christian churches are doing this every day.
[/QUOTE]
I'll only flame you, Bob, for lumping fringe and "hardcore" units with the general body. As I'm sure you know, there are a great many churches that do not preach hardcore rhetoric, and even those that might be labeled "extremely conservative" still have community or international outreach programs.
I just because a person watches the 700 Club doesn't mean they agree with everything Pat Robertson says, for example.
Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Christian churches are doing this every day.
[/QUOTE]
I'll only flame you, Bob, for lumping fringe and "hardcore" units with the general body. As I'm sure you know, there are a great many churches that do not preach hardcore rhetoric, and even those that might be labeled "extremely conservative" still have community or international outreach programs.
I just because a person watches the 700 Club doesn't mean they agree with everything Pat Robertson says, for example.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'll only flame you, Bob, for lumping fringe and "hardcore" units with the general body. As I'm sure you know, there are a great many churches that do not preach hardcore rhetoric, and even those that might be labeled "extremely conservative" still have community or international outreach programs.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I thought of that right after I read my post, and edited it, which was as you were writing. I'm well aware that not all churches are the uber-indoctrinating type.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]just because a person watches the 700 Club doesn't mean they agree with everything Pat Robertson says, for example.[/QUOTE]
Right, but young children don't yet have that ability to separate things they agree with from things they disagree with. Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in. Do you think we'd have religious fanaticism if kids weren't sucked into it when they were young?
Yes, I thought of that right after I read my post, and edited it, which was as you were writing. I'm well aware that not all churches are the uber-indoctrinating type.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]just because a person watches the 700 Club doesn't mean they agree with everything Pat Robertson says, for example.[/QUOTE]
Right, but young children don't yet have that ability to separate things they agree with from things they disagree with. Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in. Do you think we'd have religious fanaticism if kids weren't sucked into it when they were young?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in.
[/QUOTE]
I understand your point, but that comment sounds an awful lot like the conservative argument for more censorship.
Overall, however, I'm not sure that kids provide the backbone for religious fanaticism. Traditionally in America, the people to fear were the older demagogues and not the young people. I can certainly think of more examples where it was middle-age folks who caused the problems, and not young fanatics.
Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in.
[/QUOTE]
I understand your point, but that comment sounds an awful lot like the conservative argument for more censorship.
Overall, however, I'm not sure that kids provide the backbone for religious fanaticism. Traditionally in America, the people to fear were the older demagogues and not the young people. I can certainly think of more examples where it was middle-age folks who caused the problems, and not young fanatics.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I understand your point, but that comment sounds an awful lot like the conservative argument for more censorship.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Keeping kids away from religion isn't censorship. It's giving them free choice to enter a religion when they're old enough to decide if it's right for them. When you teach kids this stuff from when they're very young, it's all they know, and by the time they're teenagers or adults, the comfort has already set into a large chunk of them, leading them not to change later in life.
[QUOTE]I can certainly think of more examples where it was middle-age folks who caused the problems, and not young fanatics.[/QUOTE]
But were the majority of these middle-age folks converted as adults, or were they indoctrinated as kids? That's the point I'm making.
Not at all. Keeping kids away from religion isn't censorship. It's giving them free choice to enter a religion when they're old enough to decide if it's right for them. When you teach kids this stuff from when they're very young, it's all they know, and by the time they're teenagers or adults, the comfort has already set into a large chunk of them, leading them not to change later in life.
[QUOTE]I can certainly think of more examples where it was middle-age folks who caused the problems, and not young fanatics.[/QUOTE]
But were the majority of these middle-age folks converted as adults, or were they indoctrinated as kids? That's the point I'm making.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]--The 700 Club, July 14, 2005 [Looks like Pat forgot about Timothy McVeigh, most of the Old Testament (chock full of violence) and those Christian extremists who protest military funerals] [/QUOTE]
Still, he does (in a somewhat warped sense) have a point, if only in this one quote. Timothy McVeigh is an isolated case, and there was clearly something wrong with him psychologically. While the Old Testament is full of violence, you don't see the local Catholic Church in weekly combatative training sessions. And as for protesting military funerals...that's really nothing even close to terrorism. More like rude stupidity.
Either way, it is an interesting thing to note that, statistically, the vast majority of all terroristic activities are perpetrated by a follower of the Muslim faith, usually because of this faith. I think this is what Millionaire Waltz and many others are wondering about.
Edit: Take Scientology, for instance. People are quick to point out the secretive and almost terroristic nature of that religion, but they are very wary to point a finger at Islam...yet Muslims seem to be the "Crusaders" of the 21st century.
Not trying to be racist at all, but that's just how it is, and this is what everyone is wondering about.
Still, he does (in a somewhat warped sense) have a point, if only in this one quote. Timothy McVeigh is an isolated case, and there was clearly something wrong with him psychologically. While the Old Testament is full of violence, you don't see the local Catholic Church in weekly combatative training sessions. And as for protesting military funerals...that's really nothing even close to terrorism. More like rude stupidity.
Either way, it is an interesting thing to note that, statistically, the vast majority of all terroristic activities are perpetrated by a follower of the Muslim faith, usually because of this faith. I think this is what Millionaire Waltz and many others are wondering about.
Edit: Take Scientology, for instance. People are quick to point out the secretive and almost terroristic nature of that religion, but they are very wary to point a finger at Islam...yet Muslims seem to be the "Crusaders" of the 21st century.
Not trying to be racist at all, but that's just how it is, and this is what everyone is wondering about.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?[/QUOTE]
Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Conservative christian (I refuse to capitalize the word) churches and media outlets like the 700 Club are doing this every day. You're not killing people, but you're essentially creating millions of zealots who will do nothing to solve the world's biggest problems when they grow old enough to have that potential. Their primary concern is "being saved", and they are taught to see the earth has a place to be left behind in favour of the platonic view of heaven in the sky. A person who won't spread awareness about world issues (many of which are religious issues which they will be blind to) and/or do a little something to help solve them is nothing but a self-serving person. In the grand scheme of things, from the viewpoint of doing better for this world outside of themselves, these people been mentally killed by means of indoctrination.
Okay, I'll get flamed for this... but I'm prepared.
[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't really answer my question.
Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Conservative christian (I refuse to capitalize the word) churches and media outlets like the 700 Club are doing this every day. You're not killing people, but you're essentially creating millions of zealots who will do nothing to solve the world's biggest problems when they grow old enough to have that potential. Their primary concern is "being saved", and they are taught to see the earth has a place to be left behind in favour of the platonic view of heaven in the sky. A person who won't spread awareness about world issues (many of which are religious issues which they will be blind to) and/or do a little something to help solve them is nothing but a self-serving person. In the grand scheme of things, from the viewpoint of doing better for this world outside of themselves, these people been mentally killed by means of indoctrination.
Okay, I'll get flamed for this... but I'm prepared.
[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't really answer my question.
Sir GH
You're original statement was that "Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in." Now, shoe's on the other foot for a moment, but can't people who oppose violence, sex, or politics on TV say the exact same thing as you did? That's what I meant by censorship.
You are arguing that religous fanaticism is wrongly instilled in the youth, but the same would hold true for any ideological avenue, whether it be racism, religion, or politics. The idea should not be keeping children away so that they can make choice as adults; tabula rasa does not work for 18 year olds. If anything, education is how these children learn the ways of the world.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
But were the majority of these middle-age folks converted as adults, or were they indoctrinated as kids? That's the point I'm making.[/QUOTE]
Malcolm X converted to the Nation of Islam as an adult; Martin Luther King's father was also a Baptist minister like his son.
Fanaticism comes in all shapes and sizes, but can only be identified by their opponents.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Still doesn't really answer my question.[/QUOTE]
Read my link. Christian terrorism has and does exist.
You're original statement was that "Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in." Now, shoe's on the other foot for a moment, but can't people who oppose violence, sex, or politics on TV say the exact same thing as you did? That's what I meant by censorship.
You are arguing that religous fanaticism is wrongly instilled in the youth, but the same would hold true for any ideological avenue, whether it be racism, religion, or politics. The idea should not be keeping children away so that they can make choice as adults; tabula rasa does not work for 18 year olds. If anything, education is how these children learn the ways of the world.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
But were the majority of these middle-age folks converted as adults, or were they indoctrinated as kids? That's the point I'm making.[/QUOTE]
Malcolm X converted to the Nation of Islam as an adult; Martin Luther King's father was also a Baptist minister like his son.
Fanaticism comes in all shapes and sizes, but can only be identified by their opponents.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Still doesn't really answer my question.[/QUOTE]
Read my link. Christian terrorism has and does exist.
yeah the funny thing is i was flying home the day after they found that out, out of heathrow to new york
a US city theyre talking about it was quite funny, kind of nice really, my flight got cancelled 3 times and i got to stay in london longer!
a US city theyre talking about it was quite funny, kind of nice really, my flight got cancelled 3 times and i got to stay in london longer!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You're original statement was that "Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in." Now, shoe's on the other foot for a moment, but can't people who oppose violence, sex, or politics on TV say the exact same thing as you did? That's what I meant by censorship.
You are arguing that religous fanaticism is wrongly instilled in the youth, but the same would hold true for any ideological avenue, whether it be racism, religion, or politics. The idea should not be keeping children away so that they can make choice as adults; tabula rasa does not work for 18 year olds. If anything, education is how these children learn the ways of the world.[/QUOTE]
Shoving religion down kids' throats isn't education. Education is when you teach kids things that are true that they can take with them into the world. Teaching them that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe will end up in hell, along with ficticious stories written thousands of years ago, is not education.
But I do see your point about censorship. Like anything else, the line must be drawn somewhere. But religion is different from the other examples you noted above. Families don't go to a special place once a week to be pressured into learning how to be racist, violent, or politically bigoted, and there aren't sacred scriptures that they read every night to instill any of these particular values into their children's fragile minds. Fundamentalist religion is a whole different ball game.
You are arguing that religous fanaticism is wrongly instilled in the youth, but the same would hold true for any ideological avenue, whether it be racism, religion, or politics. The idea should not be keeping children away so that they can make choice as adults; tabula rasa does not work for 18 year olds. If anything, education is how these children learn the ways of the world.[/QUOTE]
Shoving religion down kids' throats isn't education. Education is when you teach kids things that are true that they can take with them into the world. Teaching them that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe will end up in hell, along with ficticious stories written thousands of years ago, is not education.
But I do see your point about censorship. Like anything else, the line must be drawn somewhere. But religion is different from the other examples you noted above. Families don't go to a special place once a week to be pressured into learning how to be racist, violent, or politically bigoted, and there aren't sacred scriptures that they read every night to instill any of these particular values into their children's fragile minds. Fundamentalist religion is a whole different ball game.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
But religion is different from the other examples you noted above. Families don't go to a special place once a week to be pressured into learning how to be racist, violent, or politically bigoted, and there aren't sacred scriptures that they read every night to instill any of these particular values into their children's fragile minds. Fundamentalist religion is a whole different ball game.
[/QUOTE]
One day a week in a church, or every night at the kitchen table, it's all the same. It's ideology that can be good or bad, and it can be shoved down a child's throat.
But let me ask this, if you don't teach them religion, then what do you teach them? It seems to me that in order to teach children the evils of "bad" religion, then you have to teach them why it is "bad." The point of parenting (which is my ultimate point) is to guide children into adulthood.
To make an analogy, how many young adults screw up their credit for life because no one ever taught them how to use a credit card?
But religion is different from the other examples you noted above. Families don't go to a special place once a week to be pressured into learning how to be racist, violent, or politically bigoted, and there aren't sacred scriptures that they read every night to instill any of these particular values into their children's fragile minds. Fundamentalist religion is a whole different ball game.
[/QUOTE]
One day a week in a church, or every night at the kitchen table, it's all the same. It's ideology that can be good or bad, and it can be shoved down a child's throat.
But let me ask this, if you don't teach them religion, then what do you teach them? It seems to me that in order to teach children the evils of "bad" religion, then you have to teach them why it is "bad." The point of parenting (which is my ultimate point) is to guide children into adulthood.
To make an analogy, how many young adults screw up their credit for life because no one ever taught them how to use a credit card?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement.
Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here.[/QUOTE]
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
He has continued to be a harsh critic of Islam and Muslims. In a radio interview on March 4, 2002, Falwell said of former President Jimmy Carter, "His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us."
That's from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#Controversial_remarks)
What we need to to is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us?? Couldn't put it more plain than that.
Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing. [/QUOTE]
Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement.
Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here.[/QUOTE]
OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:
He has continued to be a harsh critic of Islam and Muslims. In a radio interview on March 4, 2002, Falwell said of former President Jimmy Carter, "His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us."
That's from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#Controversial_remarks)
What we need to to is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us?? Couldn't put it more plain than that.