Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven
to be ineffective.

You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:36:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

May the best candidates win the nominations of the respective parties,
and may the best candidate among the two finalists (regardless of
party) win in November.

Nicely stated. Well done.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all
Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are
proven
to be ineffective.

You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.


I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to
withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially
annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book
written by people who were nothing special.

Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The
Handmaid's Tale"?

Handicapping Iowa...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all
Kristians
Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.
OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are
proven
to be ineffective.
You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.


I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to
withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially
annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book
written by people who were nothing special.

Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The
Handmaid's Tale"?




What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven
to be ineffective.

You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.

Well said.
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:28:53 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all
Kristians
Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.
OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are
proven
to be ineffective.
You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.


I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to
withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially
annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book
written by people who were nothing special.

Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The
Handmaid's Tale"?




What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.

And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are.


I have no problem with such people so long as they don't try to shove
their "limited and literal view of the world and their faith" on the
rest of us.

When they do - and they do - then I think I have an obligation to push
back, and to push back hard.

When the idiot who currently occupies the White House promulgated "Jesus
Day" in Texas while he was governor there, I would have hauled his ass
into federal court had I been a Texan. The fact that he and his
administration use their simple-minded, limited and literal view of the
world to deny access to condoms to Africans who are suffering through an
AIDs epidemic makes me believe that there is something really and truly
wrong with their belief system.

But, hey, I'm a pessimist. I fully expect that if Barack Obama is the
Democrat nominee, one of those geniuses with their limited and literal
view of the world and their faith will try to assassinate him.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.

And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are.


I have no problem with such people so long as they don't try to shove
their "limited and literal view of the world and their faith" on the rest
of us.

When they do - and they do - then I think I have an obligation to push
back, and to push back hard.

When the idiot who currently occupies the White House promulgated "Jesus
Day" in Texas while he was governor there, I would have hauled his ass
into federal court had I been a Texan. The fact that he and his
administration use their simple-minded, limited and literal view of the
world to deny access to condoms to Africans who are suffering through an
AIDs epidemic makes me believe that there is something really and truly
wrong with their belief system.

But, hey, I'm a pessimist. I fully expect that if Barack Obama is the
Democrat nominee, one of those geniuses with their limited and literal
view of the world and their faith will try to assassinate him.


I was just thinking the same thing. Obama had better watch his step. No
hotel balconies for him.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:49:03 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.

And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.


Better stick with Harry, Doug. You guys go well together.
--
John H