posted by O-TrapYeah, our Christian history isn't riddled with stoning people and instigating violent conflict.
I hate to defend Spock, but when was the last Christian stoning?
posted by O-TrapYeah, our Christian history isn't riddled with stoning people and instigating violent conflict.
I also hate to defend Spock too. While I normally agree with O-Trap on nearly everything, if we are talking history of centuries ago vs a religion still doing them now it’s comparing apples to oranges.
One need only go back not too far to the activities of the KKK that often referenced biblical ideology for a lot of the atrocities that took place in the 50's and 60's that were just as bad as stoning.
posted by geeblockOne need only go back not too far to the activities of the KKK that often referenced biblical ideology for a lot of the atrocities that took place in the 50's and 60's that were just as bad as stoning.
Why do you insist on bringing the democrats into this?
posted by supermanWhy do you insist on bringing the democrats into this?
I thought we were talking about christians. Im also not taking the bait on the political parties past and current ideologies that has been beat to death on this site.
I don't really think that it matters which religion did what and when. The point being, is it acceptable to mock any religion at any given time or are we supposed to give passes according the current trends and/or tragedies? Also, does it matter who does the mocking? Is it more acceptable if Trump is drawn into it?
posted by geeblockI thought we were talking about christians. Im also not taking the bait on the political parties past and current ideologies that has been beat to death on this site.
posted by superman
I have no idea how that has anything to do with anything i have posted or why you quoted me on this video
posted by geeblockOne need only go back not too far to the activities of the KKK that often referenced biblical ideology for a lot of the atrocities that took place in the 50's and 60's that were just as bad as stoning.
Touché, I will give you that one. I had a brain fart. The KKK did “claim” to be Christians while acting like the complete opposite.
Although the KKK hated Catholics just as much as blacks people which is odd to hate other Christians.
i saw there were several attack this week with religious connotations someone tried to run over some people thinking they were muslim but i dont think they were and a synagogue got shot up? I feel like im also missing another one
posted by jmogTouché, I will give you that one. I had a brain fart. The KKK did “claim” to be Christians while acting like the complete opposite.
Although the KKK hated Catholics just as much as blacks people which is odd to hate other Christians.
But, to the KKK, Catholics are not proper Christians. It is no different than members of ISIS or al Qaeda killing Shia Muslims because they do not consider them proper Muslims.
posted by supermanI hate to defend Spock, but when was the last Christian stoning?
I did note that I was referencing history. I'd contend that the absence of stoning has as much to do with the development of the west societally as it does religiously.
However, I'd point out that Torah was effectively the first document to make stoning an official means of capital punishment, so in a manner of speaking, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures essentially "invent" stoning as an official practice.
Notably, stoning is absent from the Qu'ran, though it is taught within some of the post-Qu'ran religious teachings (as some things are written by Augustine and other early church fathers in Christianity).
We've had entire eras in which there were church-sanctioned initiatives to commit acts of violence.
So, whether or not those doing the stoning most recently have been Christians, I think it would be unwise for us to paint entire systems of religious thought according to the actions of those many of them may or may not endorse, because I daresay that we'd prefer not to be associated with those committing even worse acts of barbarism within our own history.
posted by jmogI also hate to defend Spock too. While I normally agree with O-Trap on nearly everything, if we are talking history of centuries ago vs a religion still doing them now it’s comparing apples to oranges.
My point is that painting the religion as a whole according to the acts of some is equitable to painting Christians today according to the acts of those within our own history.
Just as we prefer to consider ourselves distinct from those committing the acts of atrocity that have been well-documented through the Dark Ages, there will be plenty who practice Islam who prefer to consider themselves distinct from those committing these acts of atrocity.
posted by ptown_trojans_1But, to the KKK, Catholics are not proper Christians. It is no different than members of ISIS or al Qaeda killing Shia Muslims because they do not consider them proper Muslims.
Not much different from the Reformation. My understanding is that, despite the fact that they all objected to the Catholic Church's modus operandi, the reformers were, in some cases, militantly hostile toward one another as well.
Soooooo.......agreement on a $2T infrastructure bill, just as soon as Trump decides how to pay for it? Appropriations is now the responsibility of the POTUS? And does that mean Trump can slide in $20B for the wall, or is that different?
posted by gutSoooooo.......agreement on a $2T infrastructure bill, just as soon as Trump decides how to pay for it? Appropriations is now the responsibility of the POTUS? And does that mean Trump can slide in $20B for the wall, or is that different?
No, but does it matter if we say that?
Also no, but he did bring that precedent on himself when he claimed Mexico was going to pay for something.
I'm sure he'll try. I'm sure the right will ignore the fact that it's an absurd expenditure on an obscenely old form of defensive technology that has, at best, a mixed history of effectiveness. Meanwhile, the left will say that if the wall is built, then the terrorists and the racists win. Elizabeth Warren will claim to be part wall, which will turn out to be true to a 1/128th degree. Joe Biden will creepily caress the wall. AOC will tweet insults at the wall for being a capitalist pig. The SJWs will ask why there aren't more same-sex and transgendered walls in the US. Alex Jones will say the wall is a false flag. Finally, Trump will wax poetic about the wall in his native Cheeto dialect.
And then, Kanye will drop a new track, and we'll all forget about the whole thing for days or weeks at a time, only to grumble at one another periodically when it accidentally happens to come up.
posted by O-TrapNo, but does it matter if we say that?
Pelosi and Schumer were giddy. They are obviously trying to set this up to point the failure on Trump, so that 2/3 of his domestic agenda hasn't happened.
Except what if Trump turns around after the courts strike down ACA and says "we can use that money!".
posted by O-TrapElizabeth Warren will claim to be part wall, which will turn out to be true to a 1/128th degree. Joe Biden will creepily caress the wall. AOC will tweet insults at the wall for being a capitalist pig. The SJWs will ask why there aren't more same-sex and transgendered walls in the US. Alex Jones will say the wall is a false flag. Finally, Trump will wax poetic about the wall in his native Cheeto dialect.
And then, Kanye will drop a new track, and we'll all forget about the whole thing for days or weeks at a time, only to grumble at one another periodically when it accidentally happens to come up.
Savage
posted by gutSoooooo.......agreement on a $2T infrastructure bill, just as soon as Trump decides how to pay for it? Appropriations is now the responsibility of the POTUS? And does that mean Trump can slide in $20B for the wall, or is that different?
The obamaKare website cost more than the $5B for the wall.
Let that sink in.
John Solomon has been pretty on point about the whole Russia thing.
While I don't think any of that is evidence of criminality, this is pretty alarming. The IG and Barr may end up with a far more damning report than Mueller....which might explain why Dems are going to such lengths to impugn Barr's credibility and character.
posted by gutJohn Solomon has been pretty on point about the whole Russia thing.
While I don't think any of that is evidence of criminality, this is pretty alarming. The IG and Barr may end up with a far more damning report than Mueller....which might explain why Dems are going to such lengths to impugn Barr's credibility and character.
Flailing …..desperate …
John Solomon is on fire:
"...growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in some cases tried, to help Hillary Clinton.
In its most detailed account yet, Ukraine’s embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help."
And here's how you set-up to launder this information through a friend from the media. Interesting thing is this was known around Washington already, and Manafort had been looked into - it seems, prior to Mueller, that this was not a crime that was prosecuted in the DC swamp.
" ...or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C.,” the ambassador explained. "
I feel bad for the people of Venezuela, but it is funny how the progressives in the US all of a sudden are pretending that they never believed that Venezuela was the model country for all of their progressive ideology. It wasn't even 10 years ago when progressives were fawning all over Venezuela. A lot of them are still too stubborn to admit they are wrong and would rather blame the US. So far in the span of 10 years the following progressive ideology has gone to Venezuela to die:
-"Democratic" socialism (this can encompass many things)
-Popular vote replacing an electoral college
-Gun control
-Raising the minimum wage
-Modern Monetary Theory
Am I missing anything?
Bernie had it on his website until a year ago, oddly silent now.
AOC has been silent on it as well (most outspoken democratic socialist), and Omar blames the US for it. Good work, dems.
Look what happens when you ban personal gun ownership, they run your ass over in the streets with military vehicles.
posted by gutJohn Solomon is on fire:
"...growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in some cases tried, to help Hillary Clinton.
In its most detailed account yet, Ukraine’s embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help."
And here's how you set-up to launder this information through a friend from the media. Interesting thing is this was known around Washington already, and Manafort had been looked into - it seems, prior to Mueller, that this was not a crime that was prosecuted in the DC swamp.
" ...or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C.,” the ambassador explained. "
Wonder if Mr. Rich knew who this “DNC insider” was?
Facebook beginning to ban people, mainly right wing weirdos (and Farrakhan who the dipshit media tried calling right wing). There are a hell of a lot of other pieces of shit on there though that they didn't ban. This should go over well for them.
posted by iclfan2Facebook beginning to ban people, mainly right wing weirdos (and Farrakhan who the dipshit media tried calling right wing). There are a hell of a lot of other pieces of shit on there though that they didn't ban. This should go over well for them.
Who got the ban hammer (that we would know)?
Nevermind
I understand some (Alex Jones maybe, Farrakhan probably, any other that says actual racist things, etc). I don't understand Milo (to be honest I don't think I have heard of the other people).
Milo is gay, married to a black man, but yet is labeled "fringe right wing" when in reality he just hates what SJWs stand for. I don't care much for Milo's way of expressing his views (he says some not so nice things about people just to do it), but his rhetoric has never been hateful, promotes violence, or racist, although he is labeled by the left as all 3 of these.