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.

 

A question of political correctness

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: Boadicea

Another post that has zero arguments and not even a thesis, but is designed to insult and mock.


Yup. Just like yours.


You must really be a Christian.


Yup. Just as I said in my first reply to you.


originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: Boadicea

But please expand on your thoughts. There is no reason why we shouldn't exchange viewpoints.


Much better


Yes, I am a Christian. And ya know what? The same Christians that would condemn you to hell would also condemn me to hell. Because I don't think like them either or believe all the same things they believe either. So we're in the same boat! But you have thrown me under the same bus and denied me my voice, while giving the "you're-going-to-hell" voices a greater and more powerful voice. Not very practical... and therefore not very rational.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. For every rat bastard that has twisted and contorted and distorted a sincere faith for their own evil purposes, there are ten people whose faith inspired and motivated them to good works that makes the world a better place for all of us. (This is not to say that faith is the only such motivator, but simply to point out that it is one, and a very powerful one.)

Neither is it only Christians who would condemn you to hell for your beliefs. You have heard the word "infidel", yes? So why confine your religious expression ban to only Christians? Why not all faiths?

For that matter, lots of people are going to think and say lots of offensive things about anything and everything... BFD. Why should offensive religious expressions only be banned? Why not ban anything and everything offensive anyone and everyone could possibly say about anyone or anything?

There's no logic or reason behind "because religion!" or "because Christians!"

Finally, it makes no sense to mock and ridicule and insult Christians for their belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being, because then YOU are claiming to know what you cannot know and in effect proclaiming your own "Church of Me the Omnipotent and Omniscient!" And further wanting to use the color of law and the barrel of a gun to force your beliefs on others. And ya know what? I'll oppose you for exactly the same reasons I would oppose anyone of any belief trying to force their will on me.

Let folks say what they will. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't have any more power than we give it.




posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Shouldn't there be a fine line somewhere, that makes it so that sometimes it's just .. 'too much'?

I mean, OK, our Orthodox church is not really taking the task of brainwashing people all that seriously nowadays. People go to Church to celebrate some holidays and pay the priest to recite some blessing. There is little proselytizing of a mass scale.

But in Protestantism, you have people who make millions proclaiming that they have the cure for a disease they invented (Hell mostly - you can't have Christianity without it).. and then you find out that the raging anti-gay speaker is found out snorting coke from the back of a male prostitute...

Isn't there a fine line somewhere?
edit on 24-1-2018 by Rhaegar7 because: typos



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Rhaegar7

That’s false. Censorship is the suppression of expression, opinion or otherwise.

Oppose it with your words, not coercion or force, or you’re not different than the censors in theocratic regimes, who execute and jail apostates, blasphemers and dissenters.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: Boadicea

Another post that has zero arguments and not even a thesis, but is designed to insult and mock.


Yup. Just like yours.


You must really be a Christian.


Yup. Just as I said in my first reply to you.


originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: Boadicea

But please expand on your thoughts. There is no reason why we shouldn't exchange viewpoints.


Much better


Yes, I am a Christian. And ya know what? The same Christians that would condemn you to hell would also condemn me to hell. Because I don't think like them either or believe all the same things they believe either. So we're in the same boat! But you have thrown me under the same bus and denied me my voice, while giving the "you're-going-to-hell" voices a greater and more powerful voice. Not very practical... and therefore not very rational.

I've never said that you can't share your beliefs. What I am trying to say is that there is a fine line between sharing beliefs, and proselytizing. The latter is mostly done with threats of divine punishment, and these I find obnoxious.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. For every rat bastard that has twisted and contorted and distorted a sincere faith for their own evil purposes, there are ten people whose faith inspired and motivated them to good works that makes the world a better place for all of us. (This is not to say that faith is the only such motivator, but simply to point out that it is one, and a very powerful one.)

I do not believe that faith makes people better. I actually believe that if you're motivated to do something kind for some kind of eternal reward, this is strictly a poison and not a cure. And there is no evidence that organized religion ever made the world a better place.

Neither is it only Christians who would condemn you to hell for your beliefs. You have heard the word "infidel", yes? So why confine your religious expression ban to only Christians? Why not all faiths?

Of course, I speak for all religious people and not just Christians. It just so happens that the percentage of religios fanatics in this forum is about 99% Christians.

For that matter, lots of people are going to think and say lots of offensive things about anything and everything... BFD. Why should offensive religious expressions only be banned? Why not ban anything and everything offensive anyone and everyone could possibly say about anyone or anything?

Yes, I'd like to oppose all forms of coercive behavior. If someone is trying to convince someone else, the proper way should be with arguments, and not threats of eternal damnation.

There's no logic or reason behind "because religion!" or "because Christians!"

'Because coercion' is what I'm saying.

Finally, it makes no sense to mock and ridicule and insult Christians for their belief in an omnipotent and omniscient being, because then YOU are claiming to know what you cannot know and in effect proclaiming your own "Church of Me the Omnipotent and Omniscient!" And further wanting to use the color of law and the barrel of a gun to force your beliefs on others. And ya know what? I'll oppose you for exactly the same reasons I would oppose anyone of any belief trying to force their will on me.

I consider myself as a Deist, so I can't disagree with the idea of a transcendent, divine Source of all Creation. But at any rate, if we're to do metaphysics and want to drive our point home, we should rely on arguments, not threats of violence/punishment, right? For the record, I only ridicule Christians who think Jesus is the answer to all of their problems. Those who are more philosophically oriented (and are basically Deists although they do not realize it) do not offend me, as they don't feel obliged to spam coercive statements around.

Let folks say what they will. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't have any more power than we give it.

I don't see why we should tolerate obnoxious behavior. It's up to us to decide in what kind of world we live in. Or at least it should be. Nowadays, the masses are swayed so easily by demagogues and ludicrous ideologies, that I feel we should be especially vigilant in our opposition of all forms of coercive speech.
edit on 24-1-2018 by Rhaegar7 because: typos



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Rhaegar7

That’s false. Censorship is the suppression of expression, opinion or otherwise.

Oppose it with your words, not coercion or force, or you’re not different than the censors in theocratic regimes, who execute and jail apostates, blasphemers and dissenters.


So, if somebody spewed all sorts of insults at your face and threatened to kill you and your family, it would be alright with you? Freedom of speech.. Yay?

If someone proclaimed you're an impotent homosexual on live TV, that would be 'freedom of speech' too? Yay.

OK, by your definition, I do advocate for censorship. That is the censorship of coercive speech. And actually, it is already censored in all western countries. The convenient exception to that is 'religious' expression.



For the record, I think a fine of 500eu would suffice for a first offense. And if found delusional, a 3 months therapy in the psychiatry will do too.
edit on 24-1-2018 by Rhaegar7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Rhaegar7




So, if somebody spewed all sorts of insults at your face and threatened to kill you and your family, it would be alright with you? Freedom of speech.. Yay?

If someone proclaimed you're an impotent homosexual on live TV, that would be 'freedom of speech' too? Yay.

OK, by your definition, I do advocate for censorship. That is the censorship of coercive speech. And actually, it is already censored in all western countries. The convenient exception to that is 'religious' expression.

For the record, I think a fine of 500eu would suffice for a first offense. And if found delusional, a 3 months therapy in the psychiatry will do too.



Yes they are free to express such remarks, just as I am free to puncture thread-bare their nonsense. The advocacy of censorship only lends proof that you cannot refute their arguments with speech, but only through coercion and violence, in this case by running to your daddy the state. The irony is, you're engaging in the exact same tactics as the theocrats and religious fanatics you despise.


edit on 24-1-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rhaegar7

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Rhaegar7

That’s false. Censorship is the suppression of expression, opinion or otherwise.

Oppose it with your words, not coercion or force, or you’re not different than the censors in theocratic regimes, who execute and jail apostates, blasphemers and dissenters.


So, if somebody spewed all sorts of insults at your face and threatened to kill you and your family, it would be alright with you? Freedom of speech.. Yay?

If someone proclaimed you're an impotent homosexual on live TV, that would be 'freedom of speech' too? Yay.

OK, by your definition, I do advocate for censorship. That is the censorship of coercive speech. And actually, it is already censored in all western countries. The convenient exception to that is 'religious' expression.



For the record, I think a fine of 500eu would suffice for a first offense. And if found delusional, a 3 months therapy in the psychiatry will do too.


To the first highlighted text:
No that would be assault in the 4th Deg, at least where I live. I realized after seeing the fine of 500eu that you live in eurpope. That is a different set of rules. in the US all of the offendedness of religious take is explicitly protected under the 1A. Threats and the like are actually crimes.

To the second highlighted text:
To force censorship, fines and a psych eval because of being offended by something, imo implies a weak mental constitution, when dealing with anything outside of ones views. Typically these are the same people who would get hacked off if someone would suggest censoring something they believe in strongly.

Grim



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   



The irony is, you're engaging in the exact same tactics as the theocrats and religious fanatics you despise.



I don't see what tactics I am engaging in. I am stating quite simply that it is the duty of society to protect the individual from all forms of violence and that proselytizing is coercion and therefore - violence.

All forms of violence start in the mind.

I wonder what would people think if they were the survivors of a post-nuclear world, which went to hell at the hands of a religious leader.. Because if you allow the proselytizers the freedom to do as they please, you do risk a crisis eventually. The current crisis in the ME is proof enough. Their violence started on the level of the individual. It was through aggressive proselytizing that this virus spread and eventually destroyed the lives of millions.

But it doesn't have to come to a religious caliphate in order to do damage. When even one person falls under the influence of the religious disease, it is making him sick. And he's likely to infect others..

Well, the government of China certainly agrees with me I guess. Similarly, in Japan, proselytizing is more or less forbidden and as a consequence it has come to pass that all Muslims are forbidden entry. (Right? I'm not sure I remember it correctly.)

Well, you may think of me as a bigot, but I simply feel strongly about this particular matter. I feel that we could live in a good and gentle world if we got our # together. And one of the main obstacles to this dream is the unchecked spread of virus-like religious dogmas.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimmley

So, we should not medicate psychotic individuals in that case?

Why do everyone in this topic try to turn this on me. I'm a bigot. I have weak mental constitution..

I just feel that crazy and obnoxious people should be kept in check. I don't want my children (if I ever have any) to watch some insane demagogue on TV and start talking to me fervently how they have found 'the light of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ' and whatnot.. I hear that is quite a big problem in the USA apparently.

In Europe, you get these programs that sell overpriced jewelry and they're frowned upon, because they're targeting naive old people. I'd like them to be banned. And if you would defend them on some basis of 'free speech' or whatever, then I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Similarly, idiots like Joyce Mayer make millions while brainwashing the fragile minds of so many people. I hold that we should treat each other kindly and with great care. I wouldn't allow even one person to be brainwashed by this type of Bible propaganda. It is *evil* and ugly and mean. And if you do not care about that, then I don't think there is any point to this discussion whatsoever.
edit on 24-1-2018 by Rhaegar7 because: restructured



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Rhaegar7


I've never said that you can't share your beliefs.


Well, let's say that you were not specific enough in your comments then...


What I am trying to say is that there is a fine line between sharing beliefs, and proselytizing. The latter is mostly done with threats of divine punishment, and these I find obnoxious.


Yes, it is obnoxious! And they obviously want to be or they would just keep their hateful thoughts to themselves. But there are lots of ways to be obnoxious and lots of people quite willing to be that person.


I do not believe that faith makes people better. I actually believe that if you're motivated to do something kind for some kind of eternal reward, this is strictly a poison and not a cure.


Maybe. I would say it's misguided at best. But it's also misguided to presume that all good deeds are done for a reward -- eternal or otherwise. That's not the case. People can act simply out of the love and kindness in their hearts for their fellow men and women. Or consider the "pay it forward" philosophy -- folks want their reward to go to someone else. Just as some people find lots of ways to "justify" their hateful and evil ways, other folks find lots of reasons to do the right things for the right reasons.


And there is no evidence that organized religion ever made the world a better place.


And I would say we cannot know that, if for no other reason than we only have what we have -- we have nothing to compare it to.


I don't see why we should tolerate obnoxious behavior. It's up to us to decide in what kind of world we live in. Or at least it should be. Nowadays, the masses are swayed so easily by demagogues and ludicrous ideologies, that I feel we should be especially vigilant in our opposition of all forms of coercive speech.


Our only real choice is in deciding who and what we will be. We cannot control anyone else. So by all means, call out the haters. Just don't stoop to their level. You can prop up and promote the voices with a better message to drown out those voices. Let them say what they will... but if folks have better people to listen to, they won't hear the haters.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I'd be content if society as a whole could make a stand against coercive speech of all kinds - including proselytizing. That would be enough. But if that won't happen, the next best thing would be to simply outlaw proselytizing and establish a purely secular state.

My initial message was that I wish proselytizing was frowned upon and considered offensive, as it really is very offensive. For some reason it is tolerated and even defended by PC, as if the masses can't distinguish between a guideline and a rule and have to defend some kind of ideal of 'free speech' that for some reason has to protect religious lunatics.

Another way to put it is that I don't agree that religions should get special treatment. We don't condone the emergence of various new sects/cults and will generally try to protect our children from them. But Christianity and Islam (among others) are given special treatment. In the mind of people, 2000 years (or 1500 in Islam's case) is a long time, so they seem to consider these religions as an integral part of our culture. That is the card the religious proponents are playing at any rate. But the truth is, these religions were once the 'New-Agers' and they gained most of their following through violence and coercive behavior as a whole.

I don't understand why I get ostracized for making fun (admittedly vulgarly) of Christianity, but I can't claim to be offended by people who like to tell others that they're going to burn in Hell for all eternity. Why this special treatment? If your religion is so profound, why does it require special treatment and protection?
I don't like it and I think it's a poison to society.
edit on 24-1-2018 by Rhaegar7 because: typos



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
And no one is immune to brainwashing. I myself was raised on a constant diet of the Bible for the first 7 years of my life and of course, I took it for the real thing. Even at 20 I was still kind of luke-warm towards Christianity and unconsciously regarded it as if it held some sort of profound mystery that is simply too deep for us to understand. (Or something along these lines.. my mind does not usually run a director's commentary of itself.)

I suppose that from the perspective of my Higher Self that was a valuable experience to have.

But from a more practical, human viewpoint, I wouldn't want to be that child again. Frack these parents in particular. And frack organized religion with its insistence of special treatment.

It took me like 27 years of my life to fully rid myself of this poison. Reading 'the Christ Conspiracy' was the final nail in the coffin, as it dispelled any remnants of respect for this poisonous dogma, which had remained long after I had detached myself from the general idea.

And I was lucky that I was never really that high about Jesus. Girls, in particular, are more susceptible as we are unconsciously drawn towards an ideal of the opposite gender. Christ as a Universal Father Figure is much more appealing to young girls as a whole, while a religion with a Goddess would be appealing to males. I guess it's because the image is then not as imposing upon personal identity as when it breaches your own self-esteem as a male/female individual.

Whatever. I am rambling. I know what it is to be brainwashed by this .. thing, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. (I just lied.)

So why shouldn't I say that we should defend those who can't defend themselves? (That obviously includes children as a whole.)

To be indoctrinated with religion is *to be abused*. I rest my case.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
a reply to: Boadicea

My meter found zero rational thought in that post of yours.

And to reiterate.. You think you have a right to judge whether I am going to Hell or not? Now that is offensive. And your whole post is insulting. Just proves my point really.


No.

*I* don't, and neither does that poster.

What happens to you at the end of your days is solely between you and God.

If you don't believe in Him, then it shouldn't be a big deal at all, should it.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Rhaegar7

Ah, now we see it!

Religion stung you as a child and now you are on your own personal evangelical crusade to proselytize just like any born-again convert.

Ah, irony, if only you could see it.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I could just remain idle like you, I guess. Would you praise my idleness then?



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rhaegar7
I wouldn't allow even one person to be brainwashed by this type of Bible propaganda.

Has it ever once crossed your mind that just MAYBE atheism might just be the real propaganda?

Atheism and false religion are no different, BOTH are part of the SAME agenda.

BOTH are nothing more than stealth mind control tools.

Atheism is a fabricated pseudo religion whether atheists want to admit it or not.

The entire agenda and purpose behind BOTH is to keep the truth HIDDEN.

Those who buy into it are JUST as deceived if not more than anyone who falls for religious lies.

Therefore, it all comes down to faith.

In the end, we're all the same.

We just have faith in different beliefs.


Murgatroid
Atheism is their primary weapon and it is a well-financed movement with a stealth agenda. Illuminati worship lucifer and teach that Jesus is a myth. Satan is "god of this world" and the Cabalists goal is to destroy Christianity and all of civilization and have a world without God. This is why the Illuminati use religion in secret so effectively as a form of mind control to brainwash and control the world.



edit on 1.24.2018 by Murgatroid because: Felt like it...



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I do believe that the person who brainwashes the weak-minded into subservience to his own sect is not a figment of my imagination.

God, in the context of Christianity, on the other hand, does not exist.

As a metaphysical reality, say - a supernatural, perfect and unified Source of all there is.. Sure. But it's debatable whether we should call it 'God'. I do believe we reap what we saw. What need is there of a judge, if there is no cosmic injustice to correct in the first place? I even suppose that Deities do exist.. But they would be simply powerful beings, that take little interest in the affairs of mortals. Eternal punishment for 'sins'? Ridiculous.

And to infiltrate the minds of men by coercive tactics is a form of violence. That is my problem and what I am fighting against. Our world is currently a battle-field. It is a war between good and evil. And.. we're losing.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

Well, it's logically impossible (save some kind of paradox) for both Theism and Atheism to be mind control, since you really have to make up your mind and choose one of them.

I was never a militant Atheist, but I seem to be assuming the role lately. I've always believed in a perfect Creation and a perfect Creator. But that is actually not a requirement for Theism. I realized lately that I'm a Deist. Sort of.. I don't know if we should call the Creator 'God'. 'The One Infinite Creator' is more precise.

So.. yeah, I am an Atheist. Technically. I reject all organized religion and see it as poison and as a coercive establishment.

I think you are mistaking 'scientism' for 'atheism'. Scientism is a very obvious mind control agenda. 'Science is our candle in the dark' lalala.. total bull@$!#.

Funnily, you can be an Atheist who does believe in God. It's called Deism.
My own worldview however, is that God does not require us to preoccupy ourselves with him/her/it. And my 'God' is impersonal, non-interfering and largely unknowable. I don't call him God at all actually.


edit on 24-1-2018 by Rhaegar7 because: typo



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
To be clear I was not specifying you in particular. I was stating my opinion on people who want to censor any speech they do not like.

First off to this statement:




So, we should not medicate psychotic individuals in that case?


No. There is not a reason to medicate people do to beliefs that someone finds obnoxious or is offended by. That could be someone saying you need to be medicated because you like a particular color and you believe that everyone else needs to like that same color. Someone else does not think it is a great color and you should be medicated and have a psych evaluation because you think this way. Silly as it sounds, that would be the same thing.




I just feel that crazy and obnoxious people should be kept in check. I don't want my children (if I ever have any) to watch some insane demagogue on TV and start talking to me fervently how they have found 'the light of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ' and whatnot.. I hear that is quite a big problem in the USA apparently.


First, you are being subjective again in stating that they are crazy and obnoxious. This is your opinion, others would say the same about your views. Secondly if you have children, and are worried about what they watch, control the TV. If you do not want to watch it, then change the channel, this is easily resolved. Personally I cannot stand TV evangelist, so I do the adult thing and not watch them.



In Europe, you get these programs that sell overpriced jewelry and they're frowned upon, because they're targeting naive old people. I'd like them to be banned. And if you would defend them on some basis of 'free speech' or whatever, then I don't think you know what you're talking about.


Again if you do not like them just do not watch them or buy anything from them. Simple example example of supply and demand as well, people must want what they are selling or else they wouldn't be making money.


Basically in a nutshell it boils down to this.

Just because you or anyone else is offended or their feelings are hurt about something, is no reason to censor, ban, or force psychological examinations or medications. It is selfish, and not the adult way to go about things.

Regards,
Grim



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
One more thing.

The various proselytizers always target the weakest of us. Children, seniors, those who grieve for the loss of their loved ones.

Why does this proselytizing, which always results in profit (in what is arguably a zero-sum game), fall under the label 'freedom of expression'? It is not only offensive, but it is offensive for a reason. It's a brutal coercion and a violation of our space.

Why do we have to tolerate religious views? I never thought I'd side with Hitchens (God bless him!) and Dawkins.. but I guess that's exactly what I'm doing now.. Even though I do not believe in the miracle of Science, as they do.
edit on 24-1-2018 by Rhaegar7 because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join