On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
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.

And another perfect example of the ability to traduce religious
belief.

You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

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

That would be your decision. If you felt that a monolistic theocracy
that relied on the subjugation of women to maintain social control is
a moral and ethical value system that's right for you, go for it. It's
not like there aren't those who do believe in similar systems -
certain fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, extremist LDS and neo-Nazi
polythiestic reconstructionists like Stormfront as examples.

Just don't expect to be greeted with open arms by the rest of society
if you do.

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.