Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Christophobic Censorship

Page 3 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,686
Location: Houston, Texas

25 Jan 2012, 3:36 pm

Abgal64 wrote:
If a Muslim says that misogyny is an inherent part of her/his religion and s/he tries to write a sexist op-ed and is blocked for being sexist and ignorant but denies this in the name of her/his religion, is that not the same issue here? Hate speech is not permitted because it is garbage and I am all for censoring hate speech. Look how free Sweden is, yet they censor hate speech.


I have noticed that there are similar double standards when it comes to non-Christians than when it comes to Christians.

While it is a far less popular viewpoint than in the past, people should still be free to believe whatever they want about abortion, gay marriage, etc., so long as they are not promoting violence against said people.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

25 Jan 2012, 3:40 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Censorship of a HS newspaper is pretty normal. 40 years ago I suspect the topic would have been interracial marriage and Christian conservatives would likely be equally outraged. There is no reason gay people should not be allowed to adopt. Ultimately the kid's argument will amount to "because they are gay and my religion says its bad".

In all honesty... there are actually more reasons why fundamentalist Christians should not adopt than there are reasons gay couples shouldn't


Errr ... even given the highly authoritarian nature of public schools (honestly, I recall that every grade during elementary school the class I was in received a sanctimonious lecture about how "below grade level" we were in maturity), that's still a BS move. Free speech, even for douchebags.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Jan 2012, 3:46 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Censorship of a HS newspaper is pretty normal. 40 years ago I suspect the topic would have been interracial marriage and Christian conservatives would likely be equally outraged. There is no reason gay people should not be allowed to adopt. Ultimately the kid's argument will amount to "because they are gay and my religion says its bad".

In all honesty... there are actually more reasons why fundamentalist Christians should not adopt than there are reasons gay couples shouldn't


Errr ... even given the highly authoritarian nature of public schools (honestly, I recall that every grade during elementary school the class I was in received a sanctimonious lecture about how "below grade level" we were in maturity), that's still a BS move. Free speech, even for douchebags.


I'm not for any censorship myself


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Jan 2012, 4:03 pm

Fnord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It seems that for as much as freedom of speech is permitted, it's only so long as what is said sounds favorable to the agendas of those in charge. The kid there was asked to write an editorial on that subject, but apparently only one opinion is allowed to be expressed without disfavorable consequences. "You're free to speak, so long as you say only what we want to hear!! !" essentially...

It's more common than you think, and not just in public schools - places of employment or worship, social websites, and even one's own home are becoming progressively more hostile to people dissenting opinions, even when those opinions are presented in a logical and straight-forward manner. Try expressing any unpopular opinion on an emotionally charged subject and people will line up to accuse you of being a "hater" and threaten you with banishment, bodily harm or even death.

Well, what you say is quite true by my experience throughout life. It shouldn't be the case though.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Jan 2012, 4:05 pm

abacacus wrote:
And yes, telling people they are sinners who need to change or go to hell IS hateful. Very much so.


No, it's no more hateful than telling an ignorant child that they shouldn't try to touch the flames on the stove.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

25 Jan 2012, 4:06 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
And yes, telling people they are sinners who need to change or go to hell IS hateful. Very much so.


No, it's no more hateful than telling an ignorant child that they shouldn't try to touch the flames on the stove.


If a child touches flames, he will get hurt.

If someone sins, nothing happens.

Big difference.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
Abgal64 wrote:
If a Muslim says that misogyny is an inherent part of her/his religion and s/he tries to write a sexist op-ed and is blocked for being sexist and ignorant but denies this in the name of her/his religion, is that not the same issue here? Hate speech is not permitted because it is garbage and I am all for censoring hate speech. Look how free Sweden is, yet they censor hate speech.


I have noticed that there are similar double standards when it comes to non-Christians than when it comes to Christians.

While it is a far less popular viewpoint than in the past, people should still be free to believe whatever they want about abortion, gay marriage, etc., so long as they are not promoting violence against said people.


the problem lies in perpetuating beliefs that over generations are twisted into harming people.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Jan 2012, 4:17 pm

abacacus wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
And yes, telling people they are sinners who need to change or go to hell IS hateful. Very much so.


No, it's no more hateful than telling an ignorant child that they shouldn't try to touch the flames on the stove.


If a child touches flames, he will get hurt.

If someone sins, nothing happens.

Big difference.


Right, you see no immediate cause and effect and assume it doesn't matter. Fine the analogy isn't perfect in every respect, but as far as expressing the motives of the one making the warning it is the same. You say it's hateful to warn others of things that will harm them, but I say such warnings are not hateful. Certainly there are hateful people that are emphasized above the rest so as to be used as a pretext for general censorship, but such is just political crap. No, it is not hateful to warn people that sin separates them from God, it is out of concern and not hate. Perhaps after dealing with the zealots of liberal social movements enough a few people do become filled with hate enough to kill but just telling people, "this is sin, you need to repent for your own good!" is not out of hate whatsoever.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Jan 2012, 4:44 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
And yes, telling people they are sinners who need to change or go to hell IS hateful. Very much so.


No, it's no more hateful than telling an ignorant child that they shouldn't try to touch the flames on the stove.


If a child touches flames, he will get hurt.

If someone sins, nothing happens.

Big difference.


Right, you see no immediate cause and effect and assume it doesn't matter. Fine the analogy isn't perfect in every respect, but as far as expressing the motives of the one making the warning it is the same. You say it's hateful to warn others of things that will harm them, but I say such warnings are not hateful. Certainly there are hateful people that are emphasized above the rest so as to be used as a pretext for general censorship, but such is just political crap. No, it is not hateful to warn people that sin separates them from God, it is out of concern and not hate. Perhaps after dealing with the zealots of liberal social movements enough a few people do become filled with hate enough to kill but just telling people, "this is sin, you need to repent for your own good!" is not out of hate whatsoever.


One can try to make it seem as if it is out of "concern" but it has the same intellectual credibility as the "white man's burden"- it is insulting and condescending. It is more about how one feels based on their upbringing. It makes them uncomfortable. The Right media makes it seem as if it is the greatest threat to civilization ever. In truth the arguments used to keep homosexuals down are not dissimilar from what your conservative predecessors used to keep down blacks and other minorities.


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

25 Jan 2012, 4:47 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... In the case of Christians proclaiming the Gospel and calling what the Bible calls sin as sin, it is in order to save and not to harm. But those who don't like their consciences affected don't want to hear any of it and so they suppress those who speak with censorship and harassment, and libel, and slander, and character assassination, and anything else they can do just so as to shut their ears and feel better about themselves.


Oh, I finally get it know: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt24602.html

I was already wondering who the thread starter was talking about. Everyone here seemed so nice.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Jan 2012, 4:53 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... In the case of Christians proclaiming the Gospel and calling what the Bible calls sin as sin, it is in order to save and not to harm. But those who don't like their consciences affected don't want to hear any of it and so they suppress those who speak with censorship and harassment, and libel, and slander, and character assassination, and anything else they can do just so as to shut their ears and feel better about themselves.


Oh, I finally get it know: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt24602.html

I was already wondering who the thread starter was talking about. Everyone here seemed so nice.


Nope, that thread has nothing to do with this. Didn't even know about it until now.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

25 Jan 2012, 4:55 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... In the case of Christians proclaiming the Gospel and calling what the Bible calls sin as sin, it is in order to save and not to harm. But those who don't like their consciences affected don't want to hear any of it and so they suppress those who speak with censorship and harassment, and libel, and slander, and character assassination, and anything else they can do just so as to shut their ears and feel better about themselves.


Oh, I finally get it know: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt24602.html

I was already wondering who the thread starter was talking about. Everyone here seemed so nice.


Nope, that thread has nothing to do with this. Didn't even know about it until now.


Yeah that is like what, 2007? Was he trying to imply you are an attention seeker? :/


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Jan 2012, 4:57 pm

Vigilans wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
And yes, telling people they are sinners who need to change or go to hell IS hateful. Very much so.


No, it's no more hateful than telling an ignorant child that they shouldn't try to touch the flames on the stove.


If a child touches flames, he will get hurt.

If someone sins, nothing happens.

Big difference.


Right, you see no immediate cause and effect and assume it doesn't matter. Fine the analogy isn't perfect in every respect, but as far as expressing the motives of the one making the warning it is the same. You say it's hateful to warn others of things that will harm them, but I say such warnings are not hateful. Certainly there are hateful people that are emphasized above the rest so as to be used as a pretext for general censorship, but such is just political crap. No, it is not hateful to warn people that sin separates them from God, it is out of concern and not hate. Perhaps after dealing with the zealots of liberal social movements enough a few people do become filled with hate enough to kill but just telling people, "this is sin, you need to repent for your own good!" is not out of hate whatsoever.


One can try to make it seem as if it is out of "concern" but it has the same intellectual credibility as the "white man's burden"- it is insulting and condescending. It is more about how one feels based on their upbringing. It makes them uncomfortable. The Right media makes it seem as if it is the greatest threat to civilization ever. In truth the arguments used to keep homosexuals down are not dissimilar from what your conservative predecessors used to keep down blacks and other minorities.


It is only out of concern that I'd say anything, not about some evil motivation about disabling people characterized as underdogs so as to maximize their rhetorical effectiveness in the papers and other mediums of propaganda transference.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Jan 2012, 4:58 pm

Vigilans wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... In the case of Christians proclaiming the Gospel and calling what the Bible calls sin as sin, it is in order to save and not to harm. But those who don't like their consciences affected don't want to hear any of it and so they suppress those who speak with censorship and harassment, and libel, and slander, and character assassination, and anything else they can do just so as to shut their ears and feel better about themselves.


Oh, I finally get it know: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt24602.html

I was already wondering who the thread starter was talking about. Everyone here seemed so nice.


Nope, that thread has nothing to do with this. Didn't even know about it until now.


Yeah that is like what, 2007? Was he trying to imply you are an attention seeker? :/


Possibly, but who cares if he is or not? I don't.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

25 Jan 2012, 5:58 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
abacacus wrote:
And yes, telling people they are sinners who need to change or go to hell IS hateful. Very much so.


No, it's no more hateful than telling an ignorant child that they shouldn't try to touch the flames on the stove.


If a child touches flames, he will get hurt.

If someone sins, nothing happens.

Big difference.


Right, you see no immediate cause and effect and assume it doesn't matter. Fine the analogy isn't perfect in every respect, but as far as expressing the motives of the one making the warning it is the same. You say it's hateful to warn others of things that will harm them, but I say such warnings are not hateful. Certainly there are hateful people that are emphasized above the rest so as to be used as a pretext for general censorship, but such is just political crap. No, it is not hateful to warn people that sin separates them from God, it is out of concern and not hate. Perhaps after dealing with the zealots of liberal social movements enough a few people do become filled with hate enough to kill but just telling people, "this is sin, you need to repent for your own good!" is not out of hate whatsoever.


There is no cause and effect happening. It's not that I don't see it immediately, it's that it does not happen. Ever. I have never seen so much as a string of logic that indicates truth in the heaven and hell scenario, and you seem to be forgetting that when Christ died he died so no one would have to go to hell. Either way, your argument is nullified.

Supporting quote:

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" Peter 3:18

Or in plainer English (I tend to use the old king james bible):

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit"

So, if the bible is true, no one goes to hell anyway. Christ died for the lives of the sinners.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

25 Jan 2012, 6:01 pm

So, is the article and thus keet admitting that Christianity = homophobia? Thus every attempt to block homophobia is also an attempt to block Christ. I guess keet embraced his inner bigot.



iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Image


He had two guardians, Mary & Joseph, but only one Father.
Yes, whoever banged Mary and didn't want to accept Jesus is the real father.

But that misses the point greatly. As you may know, it is currently impossible for anyone to have two fathers in the technical sense. Everybody has exactly one father. But that doesn't mean, that the concept of father in the non-technical sense, can apply to a gay couple that consists of two guys. Or the mythical magical family that include Joseph, God and Mary.


_________________
.