The Definition of Hyprocracy by Redlava

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Definition of Hyprocracy

POSTED BY: REDLAVA
UPDATED: Sunday, December 31, 2006 04:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3587
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, December 29, 2006 10:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wow. Lots of points got scrambled in this thread!

So, in no particular order:

Citizen- not being a native USAer you missed all the fun when Marilyn Manson got blamed for Columbine: www.johnnyleeclary.com/manson.htm

Finn- As Citizen pointed out, the young "heavy gamers" are not necessarily playing GTA. I know some kids who'll play Jak and Daxter all day, every day, if you let them. Also, "marketing" to a group (say, young kids) does not necessarily mean that kids are the main buyers or even the main users. All that it means is that adverts for the game appear in younger children's time slots and venues: with cartoons, in Disney magazines, etc.

Also Finn, you seem to be avoiding the point of the thread, which has to do with hypocracy. One thing about GTA... as violent as it is there is nothing hypocrtical about it. Both the game content and the game development speak the same language: make money by whatever means possible. And altho I detest violence as entertainment, something about Left Behind's creators and backers creeps me out. I've known people... "religious" people... who have killed others without EVER recognizing what they did. Their heads are full of snakes twisting together. They're quite insane. AFA the Left Behind game is concerned, the website says: Conduct physical & spiritual warfare : using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world. ... Command your forces through intense battles across a breathtaking, authentic depiction of New York City... Control more than 30 units types - from Prayer Warrior and Hellraiser to Spies, Special Forces and Battle Tanks! ... Play multiplayer games as Tribulation Force or the AntiChrist's Global Community Peacekeepers with up to eight players via LAN or over the internet!

Finn, you said you couldn't find any connection between the game and the religious right. Apparently you haven't gone to the game website or done the most cursory fact-checking.

Also, I read Cartoon's post, but when I looked at it again later it appeared to have been edited. A critical phrase was deleted about killing non-believers. Cartoon likes to play the victim whinge about how unfair everyone is whenever Xtians are treated like (gasp!) any other religion.

www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25739

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:09 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wow. Lots of points got scrambled in this thread!

Finn's standard operating procedure, bury any pertinent points with personal attacks against those making them.

Quote:
Citizen- not being a native USAer you missed all the fun when Marilyn Manson got blamed for Columbine: www.johnnyleeclary.com/manson.htm did, but I didn't miss Columbine being blamed on Doom. Maybe music is blamed more than I thought, but it certainly takes a back seat to the game scapegoat.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 8:17 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- As Citizen pointed out, the young "heavy gamers" are not necessarily playing GTA. I know some kids who'll play Jak and Daxter all day, every day, if you let them. Also, "marketing" to a group (say, young kids) does not necessarily mean that kids are the main buyers or even the main users. All that it means is that adverts for the game appear in younger children's time slots and venues: with cartoons, in Disney magazines, etc.

Also Finn, you seem to be avoiding the point of the thread, which has to do with hypocracy. ...

According to NPD, many children are heavy video game players.
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_060919a.html

According to the USFTC, 70% of the studied games rated M were marketed to children under 17, and two thirds of unaccompanied children between the ages of 13 and 16 were able to purchase video games rated M. (Which presumably means they did purchase video games rated M, which presumably means many children are playing video games rated M)
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/violence/vioreport.pdf

GTA is rated M. (The newest version has been re-rated to Adult Only, which is generally successful in protecting it from children if only because most stores won’t carry it. I’ve only played the 2001 version, which I consider to be way too violent for children, and this game continues to be marketed to and accessible to children and continues to be rated M, to may knowledge.)
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/635/635198p1.html

You want to tell me that it’s okay to market the game to children because children might not be buying it? I would say fat chance of that, but I suppose this is an extreme case of the ‘what we don’t know won’t hurt us’ philosophy. Nonetheless I continue to condemn, whether you will or not, the marketing of violent video games to children, especially when they are so easily obtainable by children. While you and I have our differences, I’m surprised to see this is one of them.

As for the whole hypocritical thing and the “Christian Right,” as I said, I’ve yet to see anything in this thread connecting the “Christian Right” to this Left-behind video game. Now granted I don’t know that much about this game, but I did read the original post as well as the two cited articles used to support it. I found nothing to identify anything called the “Christian Right” advocating this game and how that is hypocritical. Exactly how the author of this thread came to that conclusion, I don’t know.

What is the “Christian Right?” People often throw around that phrase with about as much context as the way the “international Jew” was once tossed around in the early part of the twentieth century. So when someone tells me the “Christian Right” did this or thinks that, most of the time, it’s just a broad generalization. In reality, Christians are a very diverse group with many different widely varying opinions on a huge volume of subjects. So it’s real easy to condemn Christians as “hypocrites,” since all you need to do is find one group of Christians who thinks one thing and compare them to another group of Christians who thinks the opposite, and instead of identifying two different groups, you just label them all the “Christian Right.” So as far as I’m concerned the phrase “Christian Right” is a meaningless term without contextual definition.

What if I were to say the “Islamic Right” are terrorists, making reference to one of many acts of terrorism carried out by fundamentalist Muslims? Do you suppose it is possible that there are, in fact, many Muslims who could be characterized as Islamic and Right-wing who are not terrorists? I’m pretty sure that is the case. Before I would listen to someone throwing around that line I would want them to identify what the “Islamic Right” is. Al Qaeda? Sure. They’re terrorists. Your town’s local mosque? Not so much. Is there some reason why I shouldn’t apply the same standard to Christians? I can’t think of any.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:00 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So it’s real easy to condemn Christians as “hypocrites,” since all you need to do is find one group of Christians who thinks one thing and compare them to another group of Christians who thinks the opposite, and instead of identifying two different groups, you just label them all the “Christian Right.”

Whoopsy! The reason folks here have cause to call the "Christians" who advocate a game like this hypocrites is because the group of Christians they're being compared to includes Jesus Christ himself. No one here is calling Christians hypocrites because the many different sects disagree about this or that. We call them hypocrites when they don't follow the most basic beliefs of the Guy their religion is founded on.

Several non-hypocritical (i.e.: genuinely) Christian oppinions of this effed-up game are expressed in the articles about the game. No one here has a problem with Christians that denounce the game.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You want to tell me that it’s okay to market the game to children because children might not be buying it?
No, I was just clarifying a point. I think that marketing cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, and sex/ violence to children is deplorable, even if they're (theoretically) not allowed to purchase the product. The makers know full well that kids will sneak in to see R movies, that they'll buy cigarettes, M games, and alcohol, and that even if they don't someone will buy it for them. As I said, just a clarification that "marketing to" does not necessarily mean "sales to" or "use by". Two different terms.

Quote:
As for the whole hypocritical thing and the “Christian Right,” as I said, I’ve yet to see anything in this thread connecting the “Christian Right” to this Left-behind video game. Now granted I don’t know that much about this game, but I did read the original post as well as the two cited articles used to support it. I found nothing to identify anything called the “Christian Right” advocating this game and how that is hypocritical. Exactly how the author of this thread came to that conclusion, I don’t know.

The makers of the game self-identify as Xtians. The CEO and cofounder Mr. Lyndon "has also served many ministries and Christian publishers, including the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Campus Crusade for Christ", Robyn Lyndon, the CFO and cofounder spent "more than 30 years of administration experience working in various roles for consumer marketing and ministry organizations (and was)... Finance Administrator for South Shores Church , a multi-million dollar ministry...she is an Inductive Bible Study teacher for Precept Ministries' curriculum and mother of five". www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/management.htm

The Left Behind website links to ministries and other Xtian-based websites. www.assistnews.net/Stories/s06120064.htm

By self-description

Quote:
The mission of Left Behind Games is to become the world’s leading independent developer and publisher of quality interactive entertainment products that perpetuate positive values and appeal to mainstream and faith-based audiences...Controversial as it has been, The Passion of the Christ has generated more than $500 million since it's release. Experts are expecting it to become one of the top ten financially successful movies of all-time. To date, not one high-quality video game has been marketed to this same audience. It is management’s belief that LEFT BEHIND will be a catalyst for a new genre of video game entertainment; known, as stated by the Wall Street Journal, as "God Games".

This game appears to be fairly well embedded within evangelical Xtianity. EDIT: But my problem with the game makers is not that they disagree with some other nominal Xtian group, or even that they seem to be inconsistent to the teachings of Jesus (who they profess to believe in) but that they seem to be INTERNALLY inconsistent. People who twist their brains into pretzels scare me.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:38 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Whoopsy! The reason folks here have cause to call the "Christians" who advocate a game like this hypocrites is because the group of Christians they're being compared to includes Jesus Christ himself. No one here is calling Christians hypocrites because the many different sects disagree about this or that. We call them hypocrites when they don't follow the most basic beliefs of the Guy their religion is founded on.

Several non-hypocritical Christian oppinions of this effed-up game are expressed in the articles about the game.

So basically this whole “Christians are hypocritical” stuff is a religious argument based on a religious text. Not actually, any kind of unbiased analysis. And here’s the biggest gem, some of the people making these accusations about Christians based on, according to you, the religious teachings of Jesus, are people who don’t even accept the religious teachings of Jesus. Now that actually sounds like it could be hypocritical, by definition.

While I do agree with you that a literal interpretation of Jesus’ teachings would seem to guide those who follow such teachings to a conclusion of nonviolence, how does this necessarily make people who support violence video games hypocrites? Jesus never said, to turn the other “virtual” cheek? So if a Christian who adheres to the nonviolence of Jesus (which I admit is a straightforward interpretation), plays a violent video game but is mature enough to recognize that the game is purely an entertainment vehicle, how is that a violation of Jesus’ teachings? Now to allow children, who may be impressionable enough to translate depicted fictional violence from an entertainment venue to a real world scenario, to play these games that could be become a violation of Jesus’ nonviolent teachings.

So whether I look at it from a purely secular point of view or a Christian perspective focusing on Jesus’ nonviolence, I still don’t find any reason to necessarily make broad generalization about Christians being hypocrites.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So basically this whole “Christians are hypocritical” stuff is a religious argument based on a religious text. Not actually, any kind of unbiased analysis. And here’s the biggest gem, some of the people making these accusations about Christians based on, according to you, the religious teachings of Jesus, are people who don’t even accept the religious teachings of Jesus. Now that actually sounds like it could be hypocritical, by definition.

Finn, this is just silly. Do I have to be a pedophile to have a credible opinion about pedophilia?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:02 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The makers of the game self-identify as Xtians. The CEO and cofounder Mr. Lyndon "has also served many ministries and Christian publishers, including the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Campus Crusade for Christ", Robyn Lyndon, the CFO and cofounder spent "more than 30 years of administration experience working in various roles for consumer marketing and ministry organizations (and was)... Finance Administrator for South Shores Church , a multi-million dollar ministry...she is an Inductive Bible Study teacher for Precept Ministries' curriculum and mother of five".

I’m not going to defend this Lyndon dude. I don’t think he’s interested in anything that isn’t going into his bank account.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:07 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, this is just silly. Do I have to be a pedophile to have a credible opinion about pedophilia?

No, but then you aren’t presumably judging pedophiles on what they believe, but rather what they do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hypocracy is the contradiction between doing one thing and saying another. The group that made the game believes in.. or says they believe in... instilling "positive values". So either they feel that killing non-believers is a positive value or they're in denial about what their game is teaching. Either way, it's a problem. And it's creepy.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:24 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by the King of Special Cases and Grand Marshal of Splitting Hairs, Finn mac Cumhal:
So basically this whole “Christians are hypocritical” stuff is a religious argument based on a religious text. Not actually, any kind of unbiased analysis. And here’s the biggest gem, some of the people making these accusations about Christians based on, according to you, the religious teachings of Jesus, are people who don’t even accept the religious teachings of Jesus. Now that actually sounds like it could be hypocritical, by definition.

Oh Please. Jesus' teachings are common knowledge, one needn't believe in His divinity in order to discuss them. So, no Finn, this isn't a religious argument based on a religious text.

Quote:
While I do agree with you that a literal interpretation of Jesus’ teachings would seem to guide those who follow such teachings to a conclusion of nonviolence, how does this necessarily make people who support violence video games hypocrites?

Finn. Dude. Enough with the convenient framing of the debate. We're not talking about just any "people" supporting just any "violent video game," we're talking about the Christianoid ideologues who're marketing this Left Behind mess to children! Argh!

Quote:
Jesus never said, to turn the other “virtual” cheek? So if a Christian who adheres to the nonviolence of Jesus (which I admit is a straightforward interpretation), plays a violent video game but is mature enough to recognize that the game is purely an entertainment vehicle, how is that a violation of Jesus’ teachings?

Specious nonesense attacking an argument no one is making. The makers of this here specific violent video game in question, the one where good cybernetic Christians mow down virtual unbelievers, claim that their nasty product can be a useful tool in bringing up good children in Christ. FYI: them's the ones people are accusing of hypocricy.

Quote:
So whether I look at it from a purely secular point of view or a Christian perspective focusing on Jesus’ nonviolence, I still don’t find any reason to necessarily make broad generalization about Christians being hypocrites.

Okay Finn, maybe you're talking to somebody else now. If somebody's making broad generalizations about Christians being hypocrites, de facto, and not just the so-called Christians hawking this game, then they oughta be ashamed of themselves.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 6:45 PM

CARTOON

I can only assume that the critics of this game have conveniently ignored my previous post where I quoted several sources -- including the game publisher -- that the "Christian" characters in this game are not supposed to kill anyone. I am assuming as much, as to acknowledge that fact, they would have to completely abandon their entire, anti-Christian argument as related to this game.

According to the sources I quoted previously, the "Christian" characters in this game (which, incidentally, is not a first person shooter, but a strategy game -- in third person, I imagine much like "The Sims") is to resist the anti-Christ and convert "neutral" characters to Christianity. "Christian" characters are penalized for even "accidentally" causing the death of any character.

However, these facts seem to be repeatedly ignored by those who want to use this game as ammo in their anti-Christian arsenal.

As a side note, I am not defending this game, only pointing out that this particular criticism of it is entirely unfounded.

When I first heard about this game (about a month ago), my initial reaction was a rather dumbfounded "Huh?!?!"

I did think (and still do), that it is a stupid idea for a game -- and I say this as both a Christian and a lifelong, avid gamer.

As others have correctly indicated, Jesus never condoned believers taking up arms -- even in defense.

So, even if the manufacturer's statement that believing characters can "defend" themselves (but are not to initiate hostilites) is true (and I have no reason to doubt that statement), "defense" against hostility is not something Christ has called believers to do. Even a precursory knowledge of the early church will demonstrate how believers had willingly turned themselves over to persecutors to be tortured and executed for the sake of the gospel.

As such, the only aspect of this game which (as far as I can tell) would be conducive to Christian conduct, would be "resisting evil" and the attempt to pursuade non-believers into accepting the gospel.

As neither "resisting evil" nor "pursuading non-believers into accepting the gospel" make for good gaming, I think the whole idea of this game is rather lame, and would not be something in which I'd have any interest.

That being said, the criticisms of this game which portray it as something where believers are supposed to kill non-believers are totally unfounded, erroneous, and typical of the anti-Christian hostility witnessed with patent regularity in this forum, and throughout the world in general.

Lastly, I also gather from statements made by CAUSAL and FINN that some sort of criticism has been directed at me. As I've stated previously elsewhere, it is my strict policy to completely ignore any poster who has, at some point, resorted to name-calling and/or outright lying about something another poster has said. As such, I automatically skip over anything posted (or quoted) by any such "ignored" posters.

Regarding whatever such posters may have said about me, I can only say that my posts speak for themselves, and are all a matter of public record -- which I stand by.

Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That being said, the criticisms of this game which portray it as something where believers are supposed to kill non-believers are totally unfounded, erroneous, and typical of the anti-Christian hostility witnessed with patent regularity in this forum, and throughout the world in general.

Aw, c'mon Cartoon. I took my description of the game right off the website. And, I followed your links and found that what you posted was extremely excerpted, to the point of losing the sense of the review. And, BTW- I gather from the gae description that one is not supposed to kill "neutral" citizens... ones whose spirit points are in the gray area. But what about non-neutrals? What do you do with THEM? My guess is that's what the tanks are for.

If I had to pick a game to teach "positive values" it would have a lot more going for it than singing at people and praying for them. It would be internet-based role-playing and non-magical, where the goal is to build a civilization. And you'd have to find and convince real people at the other end of that internet connection to kick in some work into YOUR plan.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 31, 2006 1:45 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Lastly, I also gather from statements made by CAUSAL and FINN that some sort of criticism has been directed at me. As I've stated previously elsewhere, it is my strict policy to completely ignore any poster who has, at some point, resorted to name-calling and/or outright lying about something another poster has said. As such, I automatically skip over anything posted (or quoted) by any such "ignored" posters.

Wow, lying is your favourite pastime huh. Just to set the record straight, Cartoon started to pretend to ignore me because I decidedly beat him in a debate, without lying and without name calling. He went away and came back a number of posts later with scores of insults totally unprovoked levelled at me, ranging from being stupid, non-Christian, evil, 'dickless' and other childish moronic little slights. He openly engaged in attacks with no purpose or even veiled attempt at addressing the actual debate, while also lying about what I said. He even accused me of actually being a terrorist and defiantly in support of terrorism, which given the fact I'm British and my parents were nearly killed by an IRA bomb is about as insulting as one can get. Frankly, not that Finn for instance gives a crap about the justification as long as the insults are only coming from his side, I have more than enough reason to openly insult Cartoon, especially given that every time he posts he insults me. I even attempted a reconciliation, and if anyone would like to see the response the PM's are still stored in my inbox.

Surely if Cartoon ignores all posters who openly name call and lie about other posters he should ignore himself? In fact he doesn't do this at all, he's singled out me, strangely enough exactly the tactics of Kaneman and River6213, despite the fact not only did I not once name call or lie prior to his decisions to 'ignore' me (and call me an evil 'dickless' terrorist), but I am certainly not the only poster who has name called here. Lets see, we have Hero, Auraptor, Finn, Rue, well just about every poster on the RWED has at one time or another, and some have directed them at Cartoon, who himself is guilty of what he apparently sees as a cardinal sin. It's the nature of this sort of political debate, everyone thinks they're right, everyone sees they're side as the one thats making life better for the majority of people, and by virtue of this the other side tends to get demonised, and the discussion can get heated. Despite this, despite the very obvious fact that I am far from the worse offender, and indeed didn't even offend before being 'punished' yet I am the only one singled out, I can only assume Cartoon's decision to ignore me has absolutely nothing to-do with the reasons he gives. More likely he realises that if he were to engage me in open honest debate not only would I tear his argument apart but I would make him look like the fool he is, no name calling or lying required. That and of course I've actually managed to workout who and what Cartoon really is.

It is my decided and considered opinion based on carefully reading each and every post by Cartoon, and nothing to-do with his opinions but more how he operates, that Cartoon is nothing more than another head on the Hydra-Troll that is RiveR6213 and Kaneman amongst others. It is fairly obvious (question since Cartoon has started posting more regularly has anyone heard from Kaneman at all? no?) and seems to only be denied by those posters like Finn who assume that since he's both Christian and Right-Wing he must be the 'best' poster on the entire site.

Take a look at his methods yourself, posting little inflammatory titbits then deleting them so as to act the 'victim' (as well as blatantly changing stance), blaming other posters for everything, obviously insulting people while attempting to make it seem like he's just generalising. Turning up on a board with a high content of scientifically minded people and spending most of his time posting thread after thread about how science is lying and evil. Seems to me the Kaneman troll has worked out what tactic works best for this board and is employing it to maximum effect and ya'll and dancing merrily to his tune.

Has Cartoon ever, once, posted outside of the easy trolling grounds of the RWED? Nope. Has Cartoon even watched Firefly? I doubt it. So why is Cartoon here? To troll, obviously.

Quote:
Regarding whatever such posters may have said about me, I can only say that my posts speak for themselves, and are all a matter of public record -- which I stand by.

After he's edited them to a form that most effectively conveys his 'victim' troll card, of course.

A further question and clarification. If I just made up what Cartoon said how come Rue saw the exact same thing I did? See Rue's post directly below mine. I admit the present incarnation of that post doesn't say what I said it did, but the original version, the one both Rue and I read, and apparently also the one Signym read did make that very statement. So again by the recollections of three different posters, the word of three against one, I say Cartoon is lying when he says his comments are 'public record' and that he 'stands by them', since both these are obviously not the case. I however do not feel the need to change my post in order to play the victim card, but if anyone here wants to be taken in by him and played for a fool, that's your own choice.

In fact if this were a court I think I could prove quite effectively my case, unfortunately this is the RWED, where someone's preconceptions (like say believing Right-Wing American Christians are always in the 'right') are far more important than the truth or reality.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:34 AM

JONGSSTRAW

"Radical" Christian Fundamentalists are but the tiniest fraction of the estimated 250 Million Christians in America...and even they, as demented as they are... ie. the snake healers, and the gay bashing funeral protesters, are extremely tame when compared to radicals of Islam.

Fundamental Islamic Terror = Cutting off heads, blowing up innocent women & children, and murdering any infidels in their quest for Jihad.

Fundamental Christian Terror = The Sunday Bake Sale has been postponed.

So when goramm rutting idiots like that retarded low-life slob Rosie O'donnel equate the two as being the same I truly wonder how Americans tolerate that type of prejudicial hatred....answer : Christians
in America are tolerant of all...even those out to destroy them.

I'm Jewish....there has NEVER been any country in recorded history that has welcomed and befriended Jews like American Christians have for the last 250 years. I'm sick to death of Christian bashing in America..and it's getting worse every year...fueled by the liberal, godless secular progressive media who attempt to set themselves above the general population. Hollywood is the other domain of secular humanism...one need look no further than the vile, revolting lifestyles these purveyors of filth and trash lead to understand how important a religious and moral upbringing is for our children.

Happy New Year Browncoats!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:57 AM

CITIZEN

Sure if you ignore all the radical Christian terror groups because they don't fit into your world view.

Fundamental Christian Terror = Children sold into slavery, mass killings, bombings, blowing up abortion clinics...

Quote:
Hollywood is the other domain of secular humanism...one need look no further than the vile, revolting lifestyles these purveyors of filth and trash lead to understand how important a religious amd moral upbringing is for our children.

Because well know Moral Alcoholic Drink Driver and Tolerant Anti-Semite Mel Gibson's 'Religious and Moral' upbringing did nothing but wonders for him.

I'm sure that the problems of Hollywood has absolutely nothing to do with setting up fallible human beings to the status of near gods, above the law and with money to buy do or indulge in anything they want. I'm sure that the religious, such as Mel Gibson, do not fall into this trap, and that if they ever appear to it is merely a function of 'Godless liberal media bias', possibly passed around by the predominantly right-wing media of the United States.

This is because, as you seem to imply, Christians and other religious people ARE fundamentally better people than the evil Godless Secularists, who as we know just think they're better.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE