O'Reilly - "Very Secret Plan to Diminish Christianity"

The Queen of Special Pleading wrote:

Just as no one likes to be belittled because of race or anything else. What is the difference? It seems to be ok for some at some times but not at others.

That is a double standard I have seen often in these threads. Not everyone does it, but plenty do.

It does not seem to sink in however many times you are told this, but you're indulging in special pleading. People cannot choose their race or their gender. Time is relentless and one's age cannot be altered.

One's beliefs are a matter of personal choice, and no one, absolutely no one is obliged to respect the content of your belief. That you have the right to cherish an imaginary friend superstition is not in doubt--that you have any right to assume no one may criticize the content of your belief is absurd. It's absolutely nonsense that people here criticize what you believe and then deny your the reciprocal right. Nothing stops you criticizing the beliefs of others, and i've seen you do it often. You were plenty damned critical and preachy with others in the Islam threads--and you hold forth in doctrinal threads about religion as if you have the special, straight-skinny from god herself.

Self-righteousness doesn't help your case, and no matter how many times you whine about, you have no right to your special pleading that the content of you belief is sacrosanct and must never be criticized.

0 Replies

There are two questions being asked here:

1) Is Bill O'Reilly correct in his assertion that there is "a very secret plan" by the "secular progressive" movement, which he said aims to "diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A." ?

And 2) Is any idea sacred ?

Have I made this too easy? The answers are No and No.

Anyone can believe anything they want, but they cannot demand that their ideas be held as above criticism, especially those ideas which are based on nothing more than supposition. Note that I said supposition rather than superstition although a strong case could be made for the latter.

It is a comfortable thing to hold, the idea that one possesses a truth. It makes one sleep deeper and proceed through life with less stress, but it is basing one's life on a myth.

Two thousand years ago, less about three hundred and thirteen, Roman priests in the temples of the Gods were shocked when people began to question - actually deny- actually reject- the ancient and sacred beliefs they had held for centuries.

Two thousand years from now philosophy graduate assistants will stay up late grading papers on the Mythic Beliefs of the Second Millenium occasionally shaking their heads in disbelief.

Joe(-O'Reilly's crap needs no more words than No.)Nation

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Since when does society become so (I can't even think of a word for it) that it would think they could belittle and demean? Where does it end?

I think society has been this way forever, so there is no "become" about it.

Momma Angel wrote:

There is racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. And now, it's ok to discriminate because of religion? Oh yeah, someone told me that was because religion is a choice and race and gender aren't. I don't find that much of a justification.

Why not? The charge "you made a ridiculous choice of gender/race" isn't just mean spirited; it is absurd nonsense. By contrast, the charge "you made a ridiculous choice of religion" is impolite and hostile, but it is not nonsense. It is a position that people can argue about. This gives people who want to argue some justification in pressing the charge. I agree it could be pressed more politely in our "spirituality and religion" forum. It could be pressed more politely in the political forum too, with regard to our political opinions. But I don't see more belittlement of Christians by atheists in "Spirituality and Religion" than of liberals by conservatives (and vice versa) in "Politics".

Momma Angel wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong.

I think you are wrong in your implicit assumption that the American government is discriminating as much against Christians than against non-Christians. When was the last time you had to lay your hand on "The Origin of Species" when you swore an oath in court? When was the last time airport security screened you out for being a Christian? When was the last time you were peer-pressured by a government-endorsed ritual to pledge allegiance to "one nation under Marx, indivisible..."? I'm pretty sure it was a long time ago.

0 Replies

There is a difference between making fun of an idea and making fun of the person who holds the belief.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot. Wink

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

There is a difference between making fun of an idea and making fun of the person who holds the belief.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot.

Good one.

0 Replies

Momma Angel believes (she has written this elsewhere) that religious notions are "sacred" and thus ought to be given special exemption from ridicule in public discourse.

She also believes, she mentions earlier, that Mohammed was a pedophile but she is sort of angry with herself for mentioning this publicly because that comes close to violating her principled stance. One can understand and share in her discomfort here.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I am so totally against the Muslim religion it is not funny. I believe their prophet was a pedophile. And, they are the ones that tell the story of him being married to a six year old. So, that is the worst I have ever said to anyone about what they believe.

Even if this is true -- you haven't cited any source of it yet -- why wouldn't this be an argument against becoming a Muslim? Why would it be improper for a Muslim to reply: "This still beats Abraham setting out to kill your own son, simply because god told you son. And it sure beats Lot sacrificing his two virgin daughters to a mob of Sodomites in order to save himself. If I recall correctly, both actions are portrayed as praiseworthy. I don't see why these facts shouldn't count as arguments against Christianity and Judaism.

0 Replies

Ok, look, I'm not answering each individual post here. I am not asking for any special pleading.

I am just saying, I don't think any of us should ridicule or belittle each other PERIOD. I shouldn't do it. No one should do it. Just because it is legal, that doesn't make it right.

I just expressed my views. So, you want to ridicule me or anyone else for believing? Fine. I have stated it offends me and that doesn't seem to matter so, it doesn't matter. PERIOD.

And yes, I get upset when someone attacks the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God. Of course, it is sacred to me.

There are plenty of links about Muhammed. I can go find them for you, Thomas.

I stated I came close to belittling myself, yes. I recognized that I did it and I recognized that it was wrong and I apologized for it. That is what I am talking about. It's getting TOO easy to do it (it's my responsibility for doing it) because others get caught up in it. It's getting too easy for so many to get caught up in so much. No one has to agree with me. It's on each individual to believe what they do or don't.

Like it's been said to me so many time, THIS IS the place to debate and state our views.

0 Replies

Yeah, News Corporation, O'Reilly's employer, is definitely trying to subvert Christianity as it produces porn on the side

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

And yes, I get upset when someone attacks the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God. Of course, it is sacred to me.

I think you need to stop associating the Bible with your own personal self worth. Otherwise you're in for a rough time.

Many people don't think the Bible is the word of God, so we're not likely to bow and scrape for it like you might. If you interpret our disbelief and our tendency to ignore it as an attack, then you will feel that you're under attack by most of the people on the planet.

0 Replies

Now this is too too funny for words. The White House 2005 "Christmas" card from the Pres and wife (or perhaps from a sanctioned Hallmark boiler room operation) sends the following...

"best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness."

Bill O'Reilly, apparently, has it right.

0 Replies

And the list everyone who is anyone is checking to see if they've made it... Bill's Blacklist

http://billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/mediadef.jsp;jsessionid=EDDBC7B5482F35D25356D55B2DBDB52E

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

There are plenty of links about Muhammed. I can go find them for you, Thomas.

Thanks, but I checked my Brockhaus independently. It is true that according to Islamic scripture about Muhammed's life, one of wives, Aysha, was seven when they got engaged, nine when they married. Like you, I see no reason to worship him. Unlike you, I also see no reason to worship a god who is alleged to have drowned almost the entire biosphere because some people disobeyed his rules.

0 Replies

Or utterly destroyed two cities because the citizens of one were alleged to have been rude to a putative angel. Another good example of virtue there, too. Lot was entertaining this alleged angel, and the local boys came to find out who was in there. That's pretty reasonable on the part of the population of a walled city in Palestine several thousand years ago. Lot pushed one of his daughters outside and slammed the door--hoping to distract the crowd. After the two cities had been blasted, and his wife turned to a pillar of salt for having indulged the merely human emotion of regret, he sacks out in a cave with his daughters, who have sexual relations with him, and he supposedly doesn't wake up. Some goofy rabbi at AFUZZ actually attempted to justify that to me on the claim that it was warranted so as to prevent the male line from dying out.

Yeah, they're all a praiseworthy bunch, meriting emulation (place sarcastic, rolly-eyed emoticon here) . . .

0 Replies

Why do you hate the Jews Setanta?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
I don't understand why some of you can't seem to understand what Lash is saying.

It seems to be perfectly ok for some to belittle others for their beliefs. But, when they are called on it, it is called humorous teasing? Well, it's not funny to me when anyone belittles me for my beliefs.

Just as no one likes to be belittled because of race or anything else. What is the difference? It seems to be ok for some at some times but not at others.

That is a double standard I have seen often in these threads. Not everyone does it, but plenty do.

It's hard for you to see how Lash's question was pure bait and when dlowan tried to answer it light-heartedly she brought out some bits from another unrelated conversation in an effort to trip her up? How you could read deb's post and take that to mean that she advocates belittling people (or inanimate objects) for their religion is beyond me. I'd love to have it clarified, but there will be no clarification here tonight it seems.

When it comes to Lash's nasty games there is no clarification, FreeDuck, since her only aim is to be as unpleasant as she can manage, and without intent to have any sort of discussion, which is why I ignore her for the most part these days.

Quote:
Note the nasty games. For dlowan, this means questions she doesn't want to answer. How psychotic must one be to make such a mountain out of straightforward questions. And--do continue to ignore me. Since you refuse to speak logically and answer questions, you are a supreme waste of my time.

I have no idea what might possibly need clarification, since it seems to me there is no possible correlation between banter about religion and using it as a weapon against helpless prisoners who are being misused in other ways as well.

Quote:
I was not discussing torture.

To belittle anyone's religion, if it is deeply meaningful to them, in circumstances where they are utterly powerless and afraid is disgusting.
To do it under any circumstances is the same under all circumstances.
Quote:
The TORTURE would make ANYTHING seem bad. But it is the TORTURE that would be bad.

To pretend to equate this with teasing is, to me, evidence of such moral blindness that I do not consider it worth arguing about it. The person who would seriously put that forward is not amenable to reasonable debate on the matter, or simply attempting to have a chance to pretend moral outrage so as to have a psychodrama.

Quote:
I said I was going to pee on a Koran. No torture was involved--except perhaps for the Koran in question. Why don't you tell the truth? It is supposed to set you free. You berated and insulted ME for cracking wise re the Koran. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Is it OK to berate Christians and their "invisible friend" and their "elderly Rohrshak"--yet not OK to joke about the Koran. Just be honest.

I leave others to makle up their own minds re which is the case here.

Either way, it is ridiculous to pretend to debate it, since no reasonable debate is intended.

Quote:
You dodge the question because you're caught.

Personally, even when I was religious, I would not have been troubled by abuse of the bible, it is just a book, to christians, in its physical form. To Muslims it is a terrible thing to abuse it. Lash says this is ridiculous. Shrugs. Equally, I regard christian and muslim belief in the god they espouse as ridiculous, yet Lash, for instance, wishes to privilege her superstition above the muslim version. So it goes.

Quote:
Why treat one better than the other? Why abuse one group and protect the other from the same thing? Bigotry?

0 Replies

I couldn't for a long time figure out what made me so anxious about god, then I remembered that in a previous life I was the first born male child of a Egyptian fabric merchant during the reign of Ramses I.

I woke up one morning dead, something to do with an emigration case and a guy named Moses. Lots of kids died that day. Tough luck for us, huh.

Joe(Pop sold a lot of shrouds)Nation

Oh, I had a question: how pagan is it to have a Christmas tree? Isn't that wood spirit worship?

0 Replies

Neither getting engaged nor marriage requires sexual relations.

Just a thought.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

And the list everyone who is anyone is checking to see if they've made it... Bill's Blacklist

that link didn't work for me, but here's his page on "media defamation"--what do you know, i haven't been exposed to the worst. Razz

A Message from Bill: Media Operations that Traffic in Defamation

The following media operations have regularly helped distribute defamation and false information supplied by far left websites:
- New York Daily News

- The St. Petersburg Times

- MSNBC

These are the worst offenders. In the months to come, we expect to add more names to this list. We recommend that you do not patronize these operations and that advertisers do the same. They are dishonest and not worth your time and money.

0 Replies

Yup...that's the page content there. Thanks, yitwail.

0 Replies

O'Reilly - "Very Secret Plan to Diminish Christianity"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know