Really? There's a difference?

[Czernobog]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

 

[Ringel05]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

We already know how extremists arise..... Thanks for being a perfect example.

 

[Pogo]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Didn't you know that there are extreme moderates, and should never be trusted...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

 

[Pogo]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

We already know how extremists arise..... Thanks for being a perfect example.

What a sissy copout... And you might want to check your dictionary. I think it's broken. Free exchange of ideas is not extremism. Inviting scrutiny and criticism of ideas is not extremism. It's precisely the opposite. The "extremist" is someone like you who refuses to discuss ideas and rejects all new information out of hand.

 

[Czernobog]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

Your response is a non-sequitur. If you read the OP you would know that I am not denying that extremists exist. I was pointing out why moderates of any given religion have no moral "high ground" on which to stand. Your only response was to point out that extremists exist, and do things. Gee, like we didn't know that.

 

[Czernobog]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

So Nazi's were Christians?

 

[Pogo]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

So Nazi's were Christians?

Yep, them too. And for those whose skills of observation never improve, we STILL do not form a plural with an apostrophe.

 

[Pogo]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

I don't have a "house", doughballs. I have logic, which your OP does not. So I pointed out your contradictions.

Don't like it? Then don't waddle in here posting contradictions. Ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Czernobog]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

So Nazi's were Christians?

Actually, NAZIs (not to be confused with Hitler) were more pagan than Christian. A lot of Nordic mythology was tied into the völkisch movement that grew into what is known today as Nazism. Hitler, himself, wrote, in Mein Kampf, strongly in support of the Catholic Church and its traditions of authority and dogma: "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." (p 152)

He also clearly believed in the existence of Jesus, albeit with his own, unusual interpretation of Biblical passages:

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God." (p 174)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."(p 64)

So, from his own words, there seems to be some indication that he had, at least, a passing understanding, and respect for deity. Even if he did perceive it differently than many would. Now, this is not to say that he did not have issues with Christianity, as can be seen in his "Hitler's Table Talks" monologue: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Most likely, from his writings, Hitler was a deist.

 

[Czernobog]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

I don't have a "house", doughballs. I have logic, which your OP does not. So I pointed out your contradictions.

Don't like it? Then don't waddle in here posting contradictions. Ain't rocket surgery.

You're acting as apologists for the Christians, so if you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck....you're a dick. Thanks for the heads up. (and, no, that wasn't a typo.)

 

[Pogo]

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

So Nazi's were Christians?

Actually, NAZIs (not to be confused with Hitler) were more pagan than Christian. A lot of Nordic mythology was tied into the völkisch movement that grew into what is known today as Nazism. Hitler, himself, wrote, in Mein Kampf, strongly in support of the Catholic Church and its traditions of authority and dogma: "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." (p 152)

He also clearly believed in the existence of Jesus, albeit with his own, unusual interpretation of Biblical passages:

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God." (p 174)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."(p 64)

So, from his own words, there seems to be some indication that he had, at least, a passing understanding, and respect for deity. Even if he did perceive it differently than many would. Now, this is not to say that he did not have issues with Christianity, as can be seen in his "Hitler's Table Talks" monologue: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Most likely, from his writings, Hitler was a deist.

Hitler was a Catholic. As is prevalent in southern Germany/Austria. This is not news.

 

[Ringel05]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

We already know how extremists arise..... Thanks for being a perfect example.

What a sissy copout... And you might want to check your dictionary. I think it's broken. Free exchange of ideas is not extremism. Inviting scrutiny and criticism of ideas is not extremism. It's precisely the opposite. The "extremist" is someone like you who refuses to discuss ideas and rejects all new information out of hand.

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

 

[Pogo]

Was it Christian "moderates" who ran the Klan and lynched/bombed black people? No, it was the extremists. Was it the Christian "moderate" Eric Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and a gay bar? No, it was the extremist Eric Rudolph. Was it Irish Christian "moderates" who conducted bombings as the IRA? No, it was the extremists. Etc etc etc.

Pretty basic stuff here. You get the idea.

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

I don't have a "house", doughballs. I have logic, which your OP does not. So I pointed out your contradictions.

Don't like it? Then don't waddle in here posting contradictions. Ain't rocket surgery.

You're acting as apologists for the Christians, so if you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck....you're a dick. Thanks for the heads up. (and, no, that wasn't a typo.)

Another wag that can't distinguish singular from plural.

I don't believe in broad-brush stereotyping, Gummo. And when you do it I'll happily point out the exceptions that disprove it. Because that's a fallacy. I don't give a flying fuck who you think it makes me "apologists" [sic] for.

Again, if you don't like it then don't waddle in here posting fallacies.

 

[Czernobog]

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

So Nazi's were Christians?

Actually, NAZIs (not to be confused with Hitler) were more pagan than Christian. A lot of Nordic mythology was tied into the völkisch movement that grew into what is known today as Nazism. Hitler, himself, wrote, in Mein Kampf, strongly in support of the Catholic Church and its traditions of authority and dogma: "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief." (p 152)

He also clearly believed in the existence of Jesus, albeit with his own, unusual interpretation of Biblical passages:

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God." (p 174)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."(p 64)

So, from his own words, there seems to be some indication that he had, at least, a passing understanding, and respect for deity. Even if he did perceive it differently than many would. Now, this is not to say that he did not have issues with Christianity, as can be seen in his "Hitler's Table Talks" monologue: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Most likely, from his writings, Hitler was a deist.

Hitler was a Catholic. As is prevalent in southern Germany/Austria. This is not news.

Hitler was raised Catholic. I think to state, definitively, that he was a practising Catholic, might be stretching things a bit.

 

[Czernobog]

By the way it was the Father's [sic] of Al Gore and Bill Clinton who were Clansmen keeping black people from going to white schools and drinking water from the same fountain. Why don't you libs ever tell the whole story?

There's no evidence that their fathers (there's no apostrophe in a plural) had any involvement with the Klan. I didn't "tell that story" because none exists. Go ahead and prove me wrong though.

The fact remains that the Klan was a extremist Christian terrorist org, and not a "moderate" one. That seems to be the canard the OP is floating here.

Or are you here to suggest the Klan were "moderates"?

Except they're not. That's the point. Klansmen are just Christians. Sure they are White Nationalists, but as we are seeing in today's political climate, those White Nationalists are not the extreme, but a branch of mainstream conservatism. I don't see a lot of evangelical "moderates" standing up facing them in places like Charlottesville. In fact, they seem to be siding with Trump's equivocation of "both sides" argument. You don't want us to lump you in with the extremists, then clean your fucking house! don't just sit around while they do what they do, then whine when everyone else lumps you in with them.

I don't have a "house", doughballs. I have logic, which your OP does not. So I pointed out your contradictions.

Don't like it? Then don't waddle in here posting contradictions. Ain't rocket surgery.

You're acting as apologists for the Christians, so if you walk like a duck, and quack like a duck....you're a dick. Thanks for the heads up. (and, no, that wasn't a typo.)

Another wag that can't distinguish singular from plural.

I don't believe in broad-brush stereotyping, Gummo. And when you do it I'll happily point out the exceptions that disprove it. Because that's a fallacy. I don't give a flying fuck who you think it makes me "apologists" [sic] for.

Again, if you don't like it then don't waddle in here posting fallacies.

If the broad brush fits...

Like it, or not, princess, people are identified by the company they keep. That is just a fact of reality. When the "moderates" do nothing to oppose the extremists, then it is no one's fault that they are associated with those extremists, but their own. And you only seem to take issue with my one point. There are still, two other points made that demonstrate why I feel the way I do.

 

[Pogo]

/thread