Morninggloryseed
Bluelight Crew
Careful swilllow with your antireligious bigotry! ?
2017 Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter Escher's Waterfall
- Start date
- Status
Erikmen
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- May 3, 2014
- Messages
- 20,707
I agree. It can't be right if religion is mandatory and promotes unequally.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
I am not saying their entire culture is evil (let's point out this generalization here). Just that it and it's addition to ours, or others, does present certain obstacles. And they do have a higher incidence of things that have sparked warning around them. Even still, people may error in generalization. But this is one reason I wish we could avoid certain multiculturalism in the first place. It promotes this. Just because we can recognize, or might recognize, errors, doesn't mean we and others won't continue to, and as we identify with and as different groups, and people with and as them...No doubt, even randomly, groups would differ, and people, being pattern seeking, even unconsciously, we're inviting conflict, tension, war. And the fact will remain that females, western females that like to be liberated, will in certain areas at least, face challenges where they would not have, had these immigrants not come.
I am facing challenges not being a Nazi and marching them the fuck out.
What the hell was my conclusion, anyways?
...The type of people, culture, etc., may have less to do with things associated with them (terrorism, crime, gang-rape, etc.), than the circumstances by which the people and cultures have found themselves, by one view. But it is certainly not independent. Cultures are created from circumstances. And we are all pretty circumstantial. But many are quick to dismiss certain things, to favor their own conclusions, like the blank-slater that thinks it's all just nurture, and that thousands of years of heritage means nothing. Even if it doesn't mean what some think it does, it probably still means something- even if you just take in contrast/comparison with another/others, and relative circumstances, holdings, yada.
Last edited:
tathra
bluelighter
do they now? again, source? the only thing sparking warning about them is bigotry and xenophobia. neither one's race nor religion makes one more likely to commit crimes (if you have proof showing otherwise, i'd love to see it). socioeconomic status, however, does. (and we dont fix that by arresting or executing poor people, we do it by improving the economy and ensuring that everyone is able to get a job where they make at least a living wage)
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
It doesn't matter. Rapes and murders committed by immigrants will continue, the governments will continue to do nothing about it, resentment will keep growing among native Europeans, and nationalism and populism will continue to rise until war breaks out.
Like I said, the good immigrants will be the ones that suffer the most.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
You've consistently lumped in all immigrants together. I'm not really convinced by your faux-concern.
The immigrant crisis is in its, what, 3rd year? Europe is still there, attached to Earth and everything. This is not the apocalypse that you seem to want it to be.
tathra
bluelighter
Its not even faux concern, its just straight bigotry and xenophobia. "But what about our white women!" is such tired and played out racist bullshit.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Nope
I recognise there are good immigrants, and I've said multiple times they will suffer the most. Bad ones are coming in with them. That is a fact. The governments give them a slap on the wrist for committing awful crimes. This shows how weak the leaders are and encourages further bad behaviour.
Russia's
muslim population is 10% and you don't see muslims there doing the shit you see in germany or sweden.
Whenever people like me raise these concerns, we get called a racist or bigot. Luckily, it isn't working anymore. One of the reasons Trump is in the white house. The left spend a year and a half comparing him to hitler and calling his supporters every buzzword in the book. Warms my heart knowing their efforts failed.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Fix socioeconomic issues (especially among the AA community) and gun deaths will go down. Remove stigma from mental health issues, make it easier for people to get help for them. Make medications cheaper. End drug war. <---Of course that will probably never happen without a revolution as our government is probably the most corrupt among developed countries.
Last edited by a moderator:
ok, but in the context of today's socioeconomic environment, do you believe that citizens should have guns?
alasdair
alasdair
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
fuck off with your asking for sources. read the quran. it has explicit instructions detailing how to rape captive, non-Muslim women (it may be the hadith, it may be both, but I know it is there). approval from God. I may get around to it, but frankly I find this just annoying. Especially that when I have (I really did spend hours a month or so ago sourcing the white inventions thing even though I thought your asking for sources for that, well, it was surprising- as I thought it was totally obvious, and the OP was right, as when I stopped at least 99% of it was white), it's been ignored. It's too much effort for too little pay off (then again it would be better for me to source, but it is a lot to remember, to find again, again, where it may likely just be ignored or dismissed for something that works for your view). And about the generalizations, again, you would ignore this too. You want to say I'm calling them evil, or whatever, because that's easy for you to attack. I never fucking use the word. I'm saying we're better without them.
apologies for flying off the handle. i actually did just read an article reporting on the rate of sexual assault in certain countries, but it was in German (about Germany), and I can't read/understand German very well, and don't trust the people who translated it just yet. waiting for verification, or another more credible source that has translated it all. The rate claimed is about 13 times higher, per capita, for "Asylum seekers" verses ethnic Germans.
also, recently there was this gang-raped that some black kids in Chicago filmed and put on facebook live (the girl was also black).... wonder when the last time a group of white guys filmed their gang-rape. were dumb enough. wanted to brag enough. recently in Chicago, again, some black kids tortured a disabled white dude. A group of them. I'm sure you heard about it. Do I need to waste my time sourcing that for you? a group of them...
A group of them raped and murdered a pregnant woman in my town. They called themselves the "kill gang". She was a minister's wife. Baby in the crib.
I don't disagree that socio-economic status and opportunity, and actually having something to lose, would play a big role in keeping people in line. I don't think people are inherently, or that their natural state of being is simply violent, but if you actually think that thousands of years of disparate evolution did not produce some difference above the neck or within the bones, that's just not very thoughtful.
Last edited:
tathra
bluelighter
That's because words have these things called "definitions". When the definition of a word describes something, you call that something by that word. Your problem is with how language works, same with the other trumpenproletariat.
I take it you're new to this whole "debating with people outside of an echo chamber" thing? Cuz that's how it works, you provide evidence to back up your claims.
Last edited:
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Found it:
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Wait, that's the bible.
LucidSDreamr
Bluelighter
What is everyone's favorite trump quip/line??
Mine are in this order:
1. "somebody's doing the raping"
2. "grab em by the pussy"
3. "I don't know what I said I don't remember" (when he mocked the disabled reporter)
4. "you're having a hard time tonight" (at rand paul during the debate)
5. "little marco"
6. "I can assure you, there is nothing wrong with that" (talking about his small penis during a presidential debate vs little marco)
what are your favorites?
Mine are in this order:
1. "somebody's doing the raping"
2. "grab em by the pussy"
3. "I don't know what I said I don't remember" (when he mocked the disabled reporter)
4. "you're having a hard time tonight" (at rand paul during the debate)
5. "little marco"
6. "I can assure you, there is nothing wrong with that" (talking about his small penis during a presidential debate vs little marco)
what are your favorites?
tathra
bluelighter
Well about half or more of the quran is nothing but a retelling of the bible so to be fair theres a good chance its in the quran too, repeating what the bible already demanded christians and jews do. It certainly wouldn't be any kind of new demands of the faithful if it's in there too.
Cream Gravy?
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 12,439
Lets face it, anyone who takes any of the Bible or its permutations literally is generally a jackass. There's a reason the Catholic church has the whole 'the Church will determine doctrine' thing because, well, they had to take all the kill yer neighbor, stone yer women (after getting them 'stoned') and fuck yer enemies wives crap out.
jfc - you just can't make this shit up: Rex Tillerson: 'I didn't want this job … my wife told me I'm supposed to do this'
alasdair
alasdair
SKL
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 14,632
That's Bronze Age warfare is what that is, being described in the Bible as part of the Israelitish conquest of the Holy Land; needless to say, this includes violence, even things which in the modern context would be called genocide; but there was no such word or concept back then, because it was the Bronze Age. The Qu'ran, being written some 1,300-1,500 years after that passage, BTW, also reflects the tribal desert warfare practices of it's time, and contains a great deal that is shocking to the modern senses. Nothing more than that, really. Both this part of the Bible and the relevant parts of the Qu'ran are historical records, not, in mainstream interpretations, commands for today; even when it is put as "the LORD [or Allah] commands," etc. and taken out of context, it's not a commandment for today, but a command to a historic person at a particular point in time.
The use of such historical unpleasantries of the Old Testament to attack Christianity displays only the ignorance of the person doing so, unless, of course, you're talking about quite obscure and heretical strains of Protestanism, i.e. the various "Messianic Jewish" groups, many of whom are not even, properly speaking, Jewish. Taking Scripture nakedly out of textual and historical context as a criticism of any religion is highly disingenuous; unless, of course, you are actually speaking about actual groups who are actively trying to reenact these same scenarios in modern geopolitics, which would include the right-wing religious Zionists, various strains of fundamentalist Islam, overwhelmingly Sunni (the Shiites, in Iran and Iraq and elsewhere, can of course be quite fundamentalistic and regressive by Western standards with regards to women and various other things, but don't seem to have this same tendency towards extreme and violent anachronism), ranging from Saudi Arabia to Al-Qa'eda who at least had valid, modern geopolitical agenda, to the ISIS which makes Saudi Arabia look like the Netherlands (and considers it "apostate") and literally and explicitly wants social conditions to replicate those of ~1,300 years ago (with, of course, modern weapons and infrastructure and so forth, but no change in social conditions and mores and even manner of dress[!])
There are very, very few Christian groups who advocate similar revolutionary anachronism although there is the Rushdooney theocrats and so forth who have at least a tangential influence on some in the religious-right sector in America (which, let's keep this at least tangentially on topic, has as a whole a rather ambivalent relationship with Trump; he obviously did well among them vs Hillary as the lesser of two evils, and some among them were appreciative of his rejection of politically-correct orthodoxy and standards of behavior, but obviously needed to condemn many of his behaviors and his general character); the politician with the closest influence of this particular (heretical) strain of Protestantism would be Sarah Palin, but there is no actual political group within any party or any politician worth naming who actually wants to revert to theocracy, it's probably even a smaller number than those who wish to turn the Pacific Northwest into a White ethno-state, for example.
If the hardcore Christian Dominonists (rather than various politicians with some influence of this particularly nasty heresy, which, by the way, makes the same mistake that you do here of emphasizing Old Testament law in a modern Christian Context; there was much ado made about these connections during the GW Bush administration, but nothing came of it, even the hardest of the hard [Protestant] "Christian-right" of elected or electable candidates to National or even State offices even in the "Bible Belt" overwhelmingly come from mainstream Protestant denominations, all of whom reject the exegetical principles of this style of Dominionism) or Christian Identity or the Church of Jesus Christ Christian or various "Israelite" groups (people who >actually believe that the twelve tribes of Israel are British, or African, or whatever, and the people who call themselves Jews are fakes; for obvious reasons this lends itself to anti-Semitism and racial supremacism in general) that various other heretical Christian groups that advocate racialism, extreme nationalism, etc., then your comparison would make sense. But it doesn't. Smug atheists who don't take their time to read not only the Bible but some actual theology have a lot of holes to fall into, and you've just found one (and in it you'll find a lot of company.)
So, anyway, contemporary Christianity actually does quite well compared to other major world religions in this respect, or, one might say, adapts easier with secularism, and this has been part of Christian theology from the beginning—see Romans 13, and, even more so, the relationship between Church and State even before 325, and the medieval Christian doctrines of "two swords" [of authority] and the simile to the sun and the moon of religious and secular authority; there is no such separation in classical Rabinic Judaism or in Islam, both of which are, when not tempered by modernism in one way or another, inherently political.
Christianity is not political, not inherently, going on the Bible and mainstream theology, with or without modernity, although it has been applied politically, to varying degrees, throughout it's history, as have all religions (certainly Hinduism—which is in a sense inherently political as it is completely intertwined "Hindu," i.e. Indian, identity and nationalism [although of course there are non-Hindus living in "Hindustan," and there is the entire nation of "Pakistan," this being another decolonizational goatfuck that in some ways resembles the Naqbah of 1948 although not in intensity and world-salience, although now that they are both nuclear powers it ought to command a lot more attention, given the amount of power that political Islam possesses in Pakistan, including in the army and intelligence services which often feel free to act independently of the elected government]—and Buddhism, which in various places is also nationalistic, revanchist, and violently conflicts with and oppresses other religions (see Sri Lanka as the most obvious example), and more or less going down the line to more obscure ones, not forgetting outright cults like Scientology who are certainly extremely dangerous, likewise Mormonism, for example has a lot of strange ideas about the U.S., where it was born, and it's politics, see the "white horse prophecy," etc., the first few generations of Mormons engaged in outright warfare with their neighbors and ran Utah as a theocratic state which in some non-literal senses it remains to be.)
But some of this separatism and application of all salient aspects of identity, including faith as a very strong one, is just human nature; all nations have had nationalists since there have been nations in the modern (nationalistic) sense and all races have supremacists and so on and so forth for every major divide in humanity where people with competing interests or ideals dividing them meet, there will be politics. But Christianity, even with the Pope anointing Kings &c., has always recognized a sort of separation of powers; many of the church-state conflicts in medieval history have revolved around the appointment of bishops, the provenance of the Church, and the attempts of the State to interfere with this, or with other matters of canon law, or the inverse with the Church at times exercising it's authority in a particular way in civil law, the separation of the two having been established since time immemorial, whereas in Biblical and classical-Rabinic Judaism and in fundamentalist Hadithic/Qu'ranic Islam (these being analogues of one another, more or less) there is no such separation acknowledged, none whatsoever.
But anyway, guys, mods, posters in general of every persuasion, all of this religious stuff really deserves a mega- or meta- thread of it's own, it winds up leading almost every thread here into toxic and off-topic places, some of which are solidly CE&P material (religion + politics) and some of which belongs better in P&S; but the same stuff winds up getting revisited again, and again, quite often by people who are, to use a phrase again that I have in the past, profoundly out of their depth when discussing these issues; many critics of both have clearly never read either the Bible or the Qu'ran or relevant commentary, historical context, and theology. Let me be clear: this goes for critics of both Christianity and Islam, as well as religion in general, which tends to bring out the general edgy-teenager "sky daddy" type attacks which besides being offensive have no particular content or relevance.
Last edited:
Bagseed
Bluelighter
tldr as usual, but the point is that islamophobes tend to use these passages of the quran on a regular basis to "proof" it's badness. and if the same stuff in the bible is just historical record, the same holds true for the quran imo. so people who bring this up rather want to show the hypocrisy of some people.
- Status