It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OK Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed From Capitol

page: 29
9
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw


So you are saying that for people to respect all Black people, they must first earn the respect?




No, she is not.

She is saying that everyone must earn HER respect.

She will notice you, and condescend to address you, but before she will respect you, you have to demonstrate to her that you are worthy.





posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

I am saying that a person - ANY person - is not "entitled" to respect. Their actions earn them respect. Respect is given by people - by individuals - not by law.

Understanding and tolerance and acceptance are not "respect."


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.

You are then saying it is ok to tolerate and understand Black or LGBT people but we don't have to respect them until they as an individual do something worthy of respect? (that is the equivalent of what you are saying about Christians; I personally think that stance is the highest form of condescension)

That is the equivalent of saying, well we will tolerate (how generous of you);
we will understand (how condescending) Christians until each one as an
individual does something to deserve respect, we refuse to respect them,
that each individual must prove their worth, while all the others do not deserve respect.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog


She will notice you, and condescend to address you, but before she will respect you, you have to demonstrate to her that you are worthy.



Exactly right!
I will notice her, and you; I will listen, and read, and consider, and CHOOSE to address whomever I wish.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So some people use the "Christian" label to say the Native American Nations were taken in the name of Christianity and then claim the U.S. was not founded on Christian principals?

Very confusing.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.

Grams, do you respect me?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: grandmakdw


So you are saying that for people to respect all Black people, they must first earn the respect?




No, she is not.

She is saying that everyone must earn HER respect.

She will notice you, and condescend to address you, but before she will respect you, you have to demonstrate to her that you are worthy.



Yes, you are correct.

But if we say we will not condescend to respect black people, or Muslims, or LGBT,
(which is all very very wrong in my opinion)
until "they" meet our standards of what is worthy of respect
that we don't have to respect them;
she would die of apoplexy.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.

Grams, do you respect me?



As much as you respect me.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

I am saying that a person - ANY person - is not "entitled" to respect. Their actions earn them respect. Respect is given by people - by individuals - not by law.

Understanding and tolerance and acceptance are not "respect."


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.

You are then saying it is ok to tolerate and understand Black or LGBT people but we don't have to respect them until they as an individual do something worthy of respect? (that is the equivalent of what you are saying about Christians; I personally think that stance is the highest form of condescension)

That is the equivalent of saying, well we will tolerate (how generous of you);
we will understand (how condescending) Christians until each one as an
individual does something to deserve respect, we refuse to respect them,
that each individual must prove their worth, while all the others do not deserve respect.





would you make the same argument on behalf of muslims?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.

Who did I 'condemn'?

I don't condemn anyone! I don't think hell exists. I can (and have a right to) decide for myself if an individual of any persuasion, station, socio-economic, racial, or religious status deserves my personal "respect."

I can NOT kill, hurt, torture, inter, or otherwise physically injure them. I can not demand that they not share public spaces with me, I can not insist that they shut up, I can not silence them. I CAN walk away. I CAN choose not to engage in business or conversation with them. And that's okay.


edit on 7/2/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


As much as you respect me.

It was a "yes" or "no" question.
But fine.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

I am saying that a person - ANY person - is not "entitled" to respect. Their actions earn them respect. Respect is given by people - by individuals - not by law.

Understanding and tolerance and acceptance are not "respect."


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.

You are then saying it is ok to tolerate and understand Black or LGBT people but we don't have to respect them until they as an individual do something worthy of respect? (that is the equivalent of what you are saying about Christians; I personally think that stance is the highest form of condescension)

That is the equivalent of saying, well we will tolerate (how generous of you);
we will understand (how condescending) Christians until each one as an
individual does something to deserve respect, we refuse to respect them,
that each individual must prove their worth, while all the others do not deserve respect.





would you make the same argument on behalf of muslims?


Of course, and I have in the past.

There are good Muslims, and some quite evil ones, the same as any group on the face of the earth.

Each Muslim deserves respect until they do something like behead, enslave, torture, kill;
as long as Muslim says "Live and let live in peace", they deserve respect and deserve respect as a group.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw


That is the equivalent of saying, well we will tolerate (how generous of you);
we will understand (how condescending) Christians until each one as an
individual does something to deserve respect, we refuse to respect them,
that each individual must prove their worth, while all the others do not deserve respect.





Hmmm. that is kind of how I approach all people? Why would I assign respect without cause?


I approach everyone with toleration and understanding until I know them well enough to also potentially respect them.

History has proven that the mere declaration or self-identifying as "Christian" by itself should not afford someone special status of respect. Christianity includes Mother Theresa and Ted Haggard (Meth and prostitutes)...it includes clergy that save peoples lives and clergy that molest children and hide the same from the public.

I afford Christians no special skepticism or faith. Each one of us earns our respect in the world by our deeds and actions, not our self-proclamations of virtue.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.

Who did I 'condemn'?

I don't condemn anyone! I don't think hell exists. I can (and have a right to) decide for myself if an individual of any persuasion, station, socio-economic, racial, or religious status deserves my personal "respect."


No Christian can condemn anyone to hell.
That is impossible.
That is something Christ clearly says we must not do,
judge others.
It is up to God and God alone to make final judgements,
I have no say in it,
neither does any Christian on the face of the earth.
If a Christian claims they do, then Jesus said he will
condemn them just as they condemned others.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


she would die of apoplexy.

I would?

I think not.

You don't understand what "respect" is, I guess.
I don't go around shooting people, I don't behave disruptively, I don't demand that anyone at all "show some respect" to me (well, maybe my kids when they were little, but now that they're grown it's up to them if they do or not).

Mind your own apoplectic reactions.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Then why did you type this:

And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.


Hmmm?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Each one of us earns our respect in the world by our deeds and actions, not our self-proclamations of virtue.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: grandmakdw

Not sure what all that was about..You claimed it was impossible for the 10 Commandments to be displayed in a non-secular context.

I direct you to Mel Brooks at the top of the page...was that comedy or church?

Comedy, art, Architecture, History...et al. I can appreciate a great religious themed painting without pondering Christianity and can appreciate great architecture with religious themed sculptures without needing to contemplate Jesus's dying for our sins etc.

Yes, context matters.



No, I was saying that if the Supreme Court declared the 10 Commandments to be religious and to be removed from a courthouse because it is religious. Then all courthouses and places of government, should remove the 10 Commandments from their buildings and facades and carvings, in order to be just, fair and equal.


If you can't tell the difference between these two pictures then I can't help you...

Context matters in determining secular or non-secular displays..





edit on 2-7-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

I am saying that a person - ANY person - is not "entitled" to respect. Their actions earn them respect. Respect is given by people - by individuals - not by law.

Understanding and tolerance and acceptance are not "respect."


And I am saying it is wrong, evil, hateful
to condemn a group as large as Christians
and tell them until all of them do
whatever it is you think they should do,
they don't deserve respect.



You do realize that what you wrote was the Christian Modus Operandi since its inception? That Christians condemned all groups they came across unless they agreed to convert to Christianity for the last 2000 years. Residential schools that literally beat the culture out of the First Nations children in Canada and the USA were set up and led by Christians. I have cousins that are missionaries and even they have admitted that missionaries do not just readily hand out food to the needy. You only get food, water and other necessities AFTER you've agreed to be sermonized.

It is built into your history. Charlemagne massacred over 4,000 Saxons for refusing to convert to Christianity. Pope Innocent III condoned the use of torture and intimidation to convert. The Spanish Inquisition saw Jews and Muslims put to death if they did not convert to Christianity and carried this fanaticism over to the New World where the aboriginals were given the same choice of Christianity or torture before death. Portugese Christians went to India and tortured Hindus into conversion and to reinforce their rule, they destroyed 300 temples and outlawed the Hindu religion.

And those are just a tiny fraction of the heinous actions done on behalf of Christianity. Christianity is finally feeling the backlash of all those people, nations and cultures treated inhumanely, tortured and killed.

Christians are the ones that need to earn everyone's respect again, not the other way around.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

okay, just went for a walk....
mulling this over.

How about this:

I RESPECT your RIGHTS. I do NOT have to respect YOU.
Clear?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yes good! That would be great! Still love the avatar there flower girl!




top topics



 
9
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join