FatHobbit;1268905 wrote:Do you mean radical christians use hatred/fear to gain and maintain power? Or is running to the internet screaming about "the religion of peace" every time there is a terrorist attack (even when it's a norwegian who is opposed to multiculturalism) not trying to stir up hatred and fear?
21 years is just to you for a Christian who killed 77 people?QuakerOats;1268964 wrote:Was Breivik deemed sane and sentenced to the maximum prison sentence under Norwegian law, by Norwegians. Yes.
As for the muslims and Islamic terrorists, we wait.
You have a problem with the sentiment expressed there?
I Wear Pants;1268992 wrote:21 years is just to you for a Christian who killed 77 people?
Eidt: Just looked it up some more. It was the maximum though he could get additional 5 year sentences indefinitely if they want to.
I have admitted several times that I was wrong on that attack in Norway. The day it happened, I repeated a news article that speculated it was a Muslim terrorist. I got it all wrong.FatHobbit;1268905 wrote:Do you mean radical christians use hatred/fear to gain and maintain power? Or is running to the internet screaming about "the religion of peace" every time there is a terrorist attack (even when it's a norwegian who is opposed to multiculturalism) not trying to stir up hatred and fear?
What does their last sentence mean, exactly? -I Wear Pants;1268997 wrote:You have a problem with the sentiment expressed there?
1. "We firmly reject the actions" - Free speech is OK as long as it's Politically Correct? How is it considered free speech then?We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
Not a single of your imagined mainstream "Republican" talking points above was mentioned in the RNC. The DNC, however, was a completely different story.I Wear Pants;1268917 wrote:Please, like it's not the go to tactic for the Republicans as well. "Obama will kill your granny with death panels", "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is a Kenyan", "Obama is a socialist/marxist/etc", "Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America so he can rebuilt it".
I don't know. Can you give me some names of radical Christians in a position of real leadership/power?FatHobbit;1268905 wrote:Do you mean radical christians use hatred/fear to gain and maintain power?
I believe that is the first sign of the apocalypse.sleeper;1268894 wrote:Going to have to agree with jmog on those concepts. Shocking I know.
I didn't say some of those places weren't violent, I was saying that they aren't religious led terrorist cultivating places for Jews and Christians.I Wear Pants;1268962 wrote:Israel is a terribly violent place.
India isn't a Christian majority country to my understanding.
South America is also pretty damned violent, though I don't know that much about their culture/if religion is very much a culprit in any of the violence there.
I'd disagree with Israel. And India has plenty of religious murder and terrorism.jmog;1269069 wrote:I didn't say some of those places weren't violent, I was saying that they aren't religious led terrorist cultivating places for Jews and Christians.
Basically I was disputing your earlier claim that the Muslims in the area that are terrorists are that way because they live in poor countries.
Seriously? What was meant by it is that you're an asshole if you use your free speech to try to hurt other people. That's it and it's true.BGFalcons82;1269034 wrote:What does their last sentence mean, exactly? -
1. "We firmly reject the actions" - Free speech is OK as long as it's Politically Correct? How is it considered free speech then?
2. "those who abuse the universal right" - Universal they say? Ever been to China? How bout Singapore? On another level, how is free speech abused? Unless someone is yelling, "fire", in a crowded theatre, there is no such thing as "free speech abuse". Now...there is stupid speech, idiotic movies, dumb flag-burning, etc....but those aren't examples of abuse.
3. "to hurt the religious beliefs of others". Interesting concept. Does the writer mean people that disagree with a religion are actually hurting people's beliefs?
Show me recent Jewish terrorist activities from Israel and Christian terrorist activity from India.I Wear Pants;1269072 wrote:I'd disagree with Israel. And India has plenty of religious murder and terrorism.
I didn't say there were Christian terrorists in India ever.jmog;1269164 wrote:Show me recent Jewish terrorist activities from Israel and Christian terrorist activity from India.
Interested in reading those links.
There are numerous regular posters on the OC that regularly impugn and hate on my beliefs. So be it. I actually gain strength in my beliefs the more they ridicule. But that's just me. I am NOT hurt by their words. Yet, here we have an entire religion of billions of people that get their fweelwings hurt cuz some believe Mohammed isn't quite the be-all end-all prophet. We aren't talking about schoolyard bullies, we're talking about people that genuinely disagree. So...in statist la-la land, words must be monitored, speech vetted, and tolerance demanded, else some terrorists get their AK's in a bunch and continue their murdering ways. Got it.I Wear Pants;1269075 wrote:Seriously? What was meant by it is that you're an asshole if you use your free speech to try to hurt other people. That's it and it's true.
Doesn't make it illegal, doesn't make it so we should prosecute you, and it doesn't mean anyone should be killed over it. But if you use the rights we have in this country to be a bigot you're an asshole who's purposely trampling on the whole point of free speech. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
You think the entire religion is represented by people like this? That's no more true than that people like Breivik or abortion clinic terrorists or Pat Robertson represent all Christians.BGFalcons82;1269215 wrote:There are numerous regular posters on the OC that regularly impugn and hate on my beliefs. So be it. I actually gain strength in my beliefs the more they ridicule. But that's just me. I am NOT hurt by their words. Yet, here we have an entire religion of billions of people that get their fweelwings hurt cuz some believe Mohammed isn't quite the be-all end-all prophet. We aren't talking about schoolyard bullies, we're talking about people that genuinely disagree. So...in statist la-la land, words must be monitored, speech vetted, and tolerance demanded, else some terrorists get their AK's in a bunch and continue their murdering ways. Got it.
And who decides what "should" means? You? Me? The U.S. government? Professor Volokh has an excellent post on this:I Wear Pants;1269075 wrote:Seriously? What was meant by it is that you're an **** if you use your free speech to try to hurt other people. That's it and it's true.
Doesn't make it illegal, doesn't make it so we should prosecute you, and it doesn't mean anyone should be killed over it. But if you use the rights we have in this country to be a bigot you're an **** who's purposely trampling on the whole point of free speech. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Really? You think that dude made a good point?Manhattan Buckeye;1269239 wrote:And who decides what "should" means? You? Me? The U.S. government? Professor Volokh has an excellent post on this:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/12/all-of-you-who-harshly-condemn-anti-homosexuality-religious-beliefs-take-note/
What if I say Scientology is a complete horsecrap religion and people that follow it are brainwashed sheep? Does that make me a bigot or does denigrating religion only matter if they can't control themselves if criticized?
It was a complement that you saw through a veil that I posted.</SPAN></SPAN>I Wear Pants;1268859 wrote:Fuck you. I couldn't. I don't appreciate people telling me what I think or believe. If I said I can't tell I can't tell.
I'm not even wearing a veil!!!!Sonofanump;1269328 wrote:It was a complement that you saw through a veil that I posted.
