Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (89725)	12/8/2004 11:33:59 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793914

I agree with you that Evangelicals and Muslims and any other religionists can do what they like. It's their prerogative and none of my business. Until and unless they make it my business. They make it my business when they impose on others, particularly me, whether through violence or just bullying. That's my reaction to idealogues of any stripe, not just religious ones, and to bullies of any stripe. In one of the religious debates a few months ago you did express a problem with the Amish on the issue of contribution My memory fails me. Sigh. For example the discussions of violent christians paints all fundamentalist christians as prone to violence. I think folks, in general, too easily read lone observations about some entity or group as generalized slams against everyone connected. Too finely honed defensive reflexes, perhaps, or just sloppy reading. If I say that MLB has a problem with steroids, I am not saying that all, or most, or even a lot of players use them, that management fosters their use, that Little League players are also afflicted, or that cousin Charlie who used to be a bat boy for the Yankees is a druggie. I'm only saying that there is an element of steroid use in MLB. Could be only a half dozen players. But that doesn't keep some folks from rushing unnecessarily to cousin Charlie's defense. Folks will infer whatever they infer, just as they believe whatever they believe. I think you'd have to be nuts to believe that there is a propensity for Christians nowadays to advance their dominance through violence. And you would have to have a chip on your shoulder to infer that anyone is so suggesting.

To: aladin who wrote (89725)	12/10/2004 9:30:37 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Perhaps we need a term for those few dozen violent christians similar to those few million muslims we call jihadis. Let's face it. Most of these things are just labels. I can't speak for muslims (I don't know many who label themselves muslims), but I know a lot of people who label themselves Christians. How many of the billion Christians actually believe in and understand Christianity? There are millions of potentially violent Christians just as there potentially violent any types of people. Why do Christians have to defend and or enable the millions of potentially violent and angry people who call themselves Christians. If these people are potentially violent, bigoted, and insist on being stupid - what difference does it make how they label themselves?