Really? There's a difference?

[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.

I also notice, snowflake, that you only seem to be shitting your pants over my complaint about Christians. Apparently you agree that moderate Muslims are responsible for the actions of their extremists, but not moderate Christians. Interesting position.

 

[Czernobog]

/thread

Thanks for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I also notice, snowflake, that you only seem to be shitting your pants over my complaint about Christians. Apparently you agree that moderate Muslims are responsible for the actions of their extremists, but not moderate Christians. Interesting position.

That's because I know more about Christians due to where I live and how I grew up.

Fucking DUH.

See, I have this weird standard that is apparently rare here --- I don't post opinions on that which I don't know about.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

I also notice, snowflake, that you only seem to be shitting your pants over my complaint about Christians. Apparently you agree that moderate Muslims are responsible for the actions of their extremists, but not moderate Christians. Interesting position.

That's because I know more about Christians due to where I live and how I grew up.

Fucking DUH.

See, I have this weird standard that is apparently rare here --- I don't post opinions on that which I don't know about.

I don't know that much about Islam. But, I do watch the news. When a group of Muslims are tossing gays off a roof, they aren't wearing the colours of ISIS, or carrying weapons. They are just average Muslim citizens carrying out the will of their average Muslim mosque.

And I have yet to see any Christians standing face to face with Westboro telling them they're wrong. I have yet to see any Christians standing face to face with protestors outside of abortion clinics opposing the slut shamers. The vast majority of your Christians just sit, every week, quietly in their pews, and do...nothing. Now, you say that it is unfair of me to "paint them" with the 'brush of the extremists". Why? Why is that unfair? If these...monsters...are doing all of these things in the name of your religion, and you do not have the courage to stand up for your religion, and tell them to sit down, and shut the fuck up, then why should you not be held accountable for what is being done in the name of your religion?

 

[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.

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?

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.

If you do know the definition of extremism, then you are a liar to apply it to free exchange of ideas.

So, dishonesty or ignorance...pick your poison

 

[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.

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.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I also notice, snowflake, that you only seem to be shitting your pants over my complaint about Christians. Apparently you agree that moderate Muslims are responsible for the actions of their extremists, but not moderate Christians. Interesting position.

That's because I know more about Christians due to where I live and how I grew up.

Fucking DUH.

See, I have this weird standard that is apparently rare here --- I don't post opinions on that which I don't know about.

I don't know that much about Islam. But, I do watch the news. When a group of Muslims are tossing gays off a roof, they aren't wearing the colours of ISIS, or carrying weapons. They are just average Muslim citizens carrying out the will of their average Muslim mosque.

And I have yet to see any Christians standing face to face with Westboro telling them they're wrong. I have yet to see any Christians standing face to face with protestors outside of abortion clinics opposing the slut shamers. The vast majority of your Christians just sit, every week, quietly in their pews, and do...nothing. Now, you say that it is unfair of me to "paint them" with the 'brush of the extremists". Why? Why is that unfair? If these...monsters...are doing all of these things in the name of your religion, and you do not have the courage to stand up for your religion, and tell them to sit down, and shut the fuck up, then why should you not be held accountable for what is being done in the name of your religion?

Because that's basic Composition Fallacy DUMBASS.

What the fuck are you, The Borg?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

I also notice, snowflake, that you only seem to be shitting your pants over my complaint about Christians. Apparently you agree that moderate Muslims are responsible for the actions of their extremists, but not moderate Christians. Interesting position.

That's because I know more about Christians due to where I live and how I grew up.

Fucking DUH.

See, I have this weird standard that is apparently rare here --- I don't post opinions on that which I don't know about.

I don't know that much about Islam. But, I do watch the news. When a group of Muslims are tossing gays off a roof, they aren't wearing the colours of ISIS, or carrying weapons. They are just average Muslim citizens carrying out the will of their average Muslim mosque.

And I have yet to see any Christians standing face to face with Westboro telling them they're wrong. I have yet to see any Christians standing face to face with protestors outside of abortion clinics opposing the slut shamers. The vast majority of your Christians just sit, every week, quietly in their pews, and do...nothing. Now, you say that it is unfair of me to "paint them" with the 'brush of the extremists". Why? Why is that unfair? If these...monsters...are doing all of these things in the name of your religion, and you do not have the courage to stand up for your religion, and tell them to sit down, and shut the fuck up, then why should you not be held accountable for what is being done in the name of your religion?

Because that's basic Composition Fallacy DUMBASS.

What the fuck are you, The Borg?

And, if their choice were to do nothing in the face of extremists were my only complaint, you might have a point. I would advise that you might go back, and read all of my OP. Then you might begin to understand the entirety of my argument.

 

[Czernobog]

Abstinence Only sex ed, Gay Conversion Therapy, attempts to make homosexuality a crime, Bible Study classes in our public schools. These are the matters that are, or in recent years were, making their way through the courts, and the ballot boxes of America. Alabama is poised to elect a Congressman who believes that being Muslim should prevent one from serving in the United States Congress, and that homosexuality should be an illegal act. These are not extremists who are making these arguments; these are normal, everyday "God Fearing" Americans. When the goals of the extremists become indistinguishable from the goals of the non-extremists, how, then, is the rational man to tell them apart?

 

[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.

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?

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.

If you do know the definition of extremism, then you are a liar to apply it to free exchange of ideas.

So, dishonesty or ignorance...pick your poison

You really shouldn't self describe like that on an open board. What would people think.


Oh and apology rescinded, obviously your a Czernobog acolyte.........

 

[Oldstyle]

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"?

To call the Klan a "Christian" organization is a bit of a stretch, Pogo...let alone a Christian terrorist organization!

It's a racist organization...and has few Christian values.

 

[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.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

 

[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.

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?

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.

If you do know the definition of extremism, then you are a liar to apply it to free exchange of ideas.

So, dishonesty or ignorance...pick your poison

You really shouldn't self describe like that on an open board. What would people think.


Oh and apology rescinded, obviously your a Czernobog acolyte.........

More intellectual sissiness by you. The things I am saying are true regardless of either or not I agree with him, and I would say the same thing of a religious person that was throwing their ideas and beliefs on the table to be scrutinized.

Face it, you're just an intellectual lightweight and coward...one of the terrified, unwashed masses who picks up a stone and throws it the moment an idea makes him feel uncomfortable. You and the Berkely snowflakes are birds of a feather.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views into actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

 

[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.

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.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

 

[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.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views in actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

All fine points, but the word "moderate" is very relative. See: moderate Muslims in Pakistan. Sure, they shy away from some of the more vile, fundamental behaviors. But their lack of true, strong opposition to these behaviors actually helps the extremists maintain a foothold.

 

[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.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views in actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

The problem is, a "moderate view" by what standard? Is advocating for criminalising homosexuality "moderate"? Sure it is...in comparison to the religion that just throws them off of rooftops. You see, you make this defence of "moderate views", with no reference point of what is moderate. When we speak of "moderates" vs "Extremists", that leaves a whole lot of room for relatively extreme views to be tolerated, because, at least, they aren't blowing shit up, and making public spectacles of themselves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Roy Moore...moderate or extremist?:

Roy Moore in 2005: 'Homosexual conduct should be illegal' - CNNPolitics

"Moderate!"

Signed,

Every "Moderate" Christian on the planet 200 years ago.
....................

Point being, not only is "moderate" relative, it's meaning in any context CAN be influenced by introduction of newer, better ideas. In this case, western Christians were indfluenced by the secular ideas of classical liberalism and scientific enlightenment. Such an effort should not be disparaged or cast as something other than what it is.

 

[Czernobog]

Let's take one specific example. Westboro Baptist Church, since I was compared to them. What, specifically, in the doctrine of Westboro Baptist Curch concerning homosexuality does the "maintream", "moderate" Christian community think that Westboro gets wrong?

 

[Ringel05]

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.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.