I'm gonna take a quick stab at this.... I would not call it 'HATE' that's a word reserved for conservatives and Christianity.... but the reason I
find them laughable...
It's the hypocrisy.
If you actually lived according to Jesus' teachings, it might be a different story.
With love, peace, and respect for all.... But your quickness to support War, hate thy neighbor, cling to your guns, covet all things money, judge
those who are different, basic intolerance... yeah, it's the bullsh*t factor for sure.
Because some of the practices will corrode the fabric of society,just like ancient Greece and Rome.
Ancient Greece and Rome had a lot more problems than accepting homosexuality as ok...if you're looking for corollaries, I'd suggest you investigate
the fate of Empires...and consider the actions of the United States in such a regard.
Life is simply not as simple as you seem to think...and like I said, what's going on in other peoples pants...or bedrooms...is less than important to
Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
This is simple. Liberals are generally free thinking people that avoid the normal constrants of society to form their opinions. Religion and
especially Christianity is nothing more than a mental prison and pyramid scheme. When you look at devout followers of Christianity usually you get
unintelligent people who cannot think for themselves nor believe in themselves. I personally think religion and especially Christianity is one of the
worst things to ever happen to mankind. Since the conservative ideological base is generally populated by frothing at the mouth Christians, you can
see why most people despise both.
And this is why the liberal movement in America most change its thinking. You say your free thinking people, I say you’re the most hateful people
in the world. You people believe in nothing, you attacked bush and the repukes for the wars in the middle east, yet your democraps have escalated and
spent more on it. You fools think taking from the rich and giving to the poor is going to teach them something, when all it teaches them to do is
Yes there are some Right wingers and Christians who are hateful but they are not the majority. I know more Christians who are colleague educated, and
are free thinkers. There was a study and I will try to find it for you that said Conservatives are more likely to reach an agreement or negotiate with
people they don’t agree with then Liberals.
Take the recent election for Kennedys seat example strong liberal state, A conservative with Conservative ideas won that state fairly... What’s that
say to you?
Hate to tell you this Obama isn't a liberal. What Brown winning says to me is people hate Obama now. I personally hate him too.
Also fortunately your opinion means nothing which is a good thing since you're absolutely buried in a pointless imaginary construct of us against
them which is based in your fear and invariably misleads and clouds your thoughts and opinions.
Because some of the practices will corrode the fabric of society,just like ancient Greece and Rome.
The Greeks were comfortable with bisexuality, especially in the military. All those manly testosterone oozing, blood drinking, vajay-jay wrecking
Spartans you saw in that movie 300... yeah, they were "into" each other. Achilles? He had his Patroclus. Remember Iolaus from that show Hercules?
Yeah, they were a lot closer than the show portrayed. The modern terminology "Lesbian" draws it's origin back to the poet Sappho of Lesbos. While
marriage at the time was between a Man and Woman only, there homosexual relationships were encouraged as a normal part of social interaction.
And this is BEFORE the great Greek empire of Macedonia, established by Alexander the Great... who, according to Diogenes, was "ruled by
Hephaestion's thighs". But what nearly tore the Macedonian empire to shreds was the political maneuvering and power-plays of the Diadochi Wars which
ensued after Alexander's death. Eventually the empire was divided into four sections, with the most famous and longest lasting dynasty being the
Ptolemaic dynasty ruling out of Alexandria, Egypt. The Ptolemys survived the other kingdoms by allying with Rome, but this alliance ended with the
death of Cleopatra and full annexation by Rome. While this marked the official end of the Hellenistic Era.
Ok... so of all the factors which contributed to the fall of the great Greek Hellenistic Era, apparently homosexuality wasn't one of them. Though
ironically, guess which event is generally regarded as the seminal moment in which the true end of the Hellenistic Era (which culturally persisted in
Alexandria) and marking the point of no return for Classical Civilization?
It was Theodosius I's marriage of Church and State - promoting Christianity as Rome's official religion while systematically eradicating Pagan
temples and exiling/killing those pagans who wouldn't convert. A campaign so bloody in it's execution, Theodosius had to call a time out because of
the social strife. This cease of hostilities saved the pagans hiding in the Serapeum, but the structure was none-the-less demolished. Shortly after
Theophilus's death, his nephew Cyril (St. Cyril) was promoted to fill his position as Patriarchate. About the same time, Orestes was assigned to the
city as it's Prefect/Governor. With tensions between Christians and Pagans still fresh, Orestes sought to stress a secular rule where all parties
were dealt with by the law. Cyril didn't agree and pushed hard for the establishment of his ecclesiastical influence over government proceedings.
Some of Cyril's followers, with all the love and grace of Christ's heart I'm sure, decided to mob and nearly kill Orestes for his stubbornness.
Theodosius, again, had to remind the angry Christians that killing those who don't agree with you, especially government officials, might not be a
wise course of action. The perpetrators of the assault were tortured to death. Which, considering modern Christian persecution complex, was like
dropping an atom bomb of rage and paranoia on the city.
It wasn't long after that a fellow named Peter the Reader gathered up some of craziest self-flagellating anti-social side-hugging Jesus fanatics he
could find - the Nitrian Monks, and decided to "remove the obstacle" they perceived as coming between Orestes and Cyril. Hypatia, the head librarian
at what was left of the Library of Alexandria.
Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was
calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore,
hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage,
they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits
of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. ~ Socrates Scholasticus
And in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and
instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through Satanic wiles...A multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the
magistrate...and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. And when
they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her...they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named
Caesareum. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her...through the streets of the city till she died. And
they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire. ~ John of Nikiû
The Library of Alexandria was burnt as a pagan affront to Jesus in the ensuing uprisings, and what little was saved was mostly abandoned as the
scholars all but abandoned the city. Orestes gave up, and left the city to the Christian mobs. What little remained of the Library that wasn't rotten
or crumbling was snatched up by the Islamic Invaders who sacked the city in the 7th century, and were put to good use influencing the Islamic Golden
Now... I dunno about anyone else here... but to me, I think that if fingers are going to be pointed, it's certainly shouldn't be towards "tha
geys" who had little to do with the decay of Classical Civilization. Slavery was certainly a much bigger issue. Political betrayal, petty political
squabbles turning into civil wars while infrastructure collapsed and barbarian mercenaries who Rome could no longer afford to pay, decided to take
severance out of their backsides. Certainly the rise of fundamentalist religious bigots who attack Educational institutions - fanatics couldn't stand
the thought of living in a society which didn't dedicate itself to kissing the backside of their lord's cross... that had a bit more to do with the
fall of Civilization.
And doesn't that sound like the extreme elements of the Religious Right to you guys? The same people who are most opposed to homosexual marriage and
Now that I've punctuated my point, a clarification. There's really no evidence to suggest that Cyril was behind Hypatia's murder, or Orestes
assault. There's good reason to argue motivation, but it's quite likely he was just reveling in the fanatical devotion he was ringmaster to, and he
let his piety throttle his rhetoric... not realizing (or perhaps not caring) what the outcome would be.
Further, a strong distinction needs to be made between moderate and fanatical Christianity of the time. Despite John's attempt to demonize Hypatia
and whitewash history in favor of Christianity, Hypatia was actually very well respected within the more moderate circles of the Catholic Church. The
Library of Alexandria was, after all, where many of the rarer or early religious texts relating to various Christian & Hebrew sects were located, as
well as secondary research material. Alexandria's papyrus industry and University made it a prime source of new biblical scrolls and materials to be
produced. Alexandria is also where they were translated from their original languages to Greek and Latin. Hypatia herself was seen by many within the
Church as a virtuous figure, as she maintained her virginity and purity to her dying breath. Further, several prominent figures within the church were
formally educated at the Library.
Indeed, the only reason we even know Hypatia once existed is because we still have correspondence between her and her former pupil & good friend,
Synesius of Cyrene. While the Catholic Church did actively denounce her as a
pagan sorceress and tried to write her out of history, the Age of Reason saw the lightening of the Churches dominance and elements within Christianity
who still revered her saw to it that her memory live on in some fashion... hence the merging of Hypatia's martyrdom into that of St. Cathrine of
Alexandria. St. Cathrine, ironically, is a more revered saint that Cyril. She is considered among the "14 most helpful Saints".
Also... ah... depending on how you look at it, the Roman Empire didn't actually collapse until about 1453. The Western Empire did, collapse -
certainly... but the Eastern Empire kind of... transitioned into the Byzantine empire. A few attempts to re-conquer and restore the unified classical
Roman Empire were made, but I only recall one of them succeeding. Justinian I managed to restore the old Empire's boundaries, but it didn't last.
When the Ottoman Empire sacked Constantinople, Mehmed II even declared himself Kayser-i Rum - the Caesar of Rome.
Its simple it really is I feel it is good vs.evil I know it sounds corny and to tell you the truth I am not some bible thump-er but look at what they
fight for and look at what we fight for. It is kind of like the the book the stand from Stephen king.
Conservatives and Christianity....pretty much the same thing.
I do not hate anything however I am really not fond of archaic belief's and ignorance. That only includes Christianity but is not exclusive.
I was raised a Fundamentalist Christian and have read the entire Bible.
We dont. It was all a big mistake. Clearly we have been pitted against one another in order that corporations might first divide us as a people, and
the conquer us. Well it has worked. The court ruling allowing corporations to donate as much money as they want to political campaigns jeopardizes
our very country, our Constitution, and makes a mockery of our Democracy.
Lets kiss and make up, push through a Constitutional amendment disallowing the granting of rights to non humans, and then we can sort out our
ideological differences later when our Constitution is safe.
OK, here is what I think:
45 years ago, I saw myself as a Republican and as a conservative. In those days, I thought that this meant "individualist" and free thinker: free
also from being ruled by the narrow opinions of the "crowd." I saw myself as a loner with a personal vision of the meaning of right and wrong; how
best to live and be happy and independent.
I saw my school divided into the "in" kids and "outsiders." With this dichotemy I prefered to be neither, but rather a loner: which was to be
labeled one of the "outsiders" whether I thought so or not.
I thought this was what being a conservative was (Roy Rogers on the frontier, Davy Crocket at the Alamo, Sargeant York on the battlefield and Ronald
Reagan in some heroic role).
I very much admired Ayn Rand and endorsed her opinion that capitalism and the individualism of the United States was a welcome alternative to the
corrupt negative of socialism. She was a passionate advocate of her philosophy of principled policies based on rational assessment: rationality,
productiveness, honesty, integrity, independence, justice, and pride. Such a philosophy with its emphasis on constitutional protection of individual
rights to life, liberty, and property, and with limited government.
But as I graduated from high school and involved myself in life and politics, I came to believe that being your own person was not part of the
socio-religious makeup of the conservative movement and the Republican party. I saw it to be a "corporate" "elite" "status-quo" "religiously
traditional" set of adamantine principles. To this set of principles I saw Rush Limbaugh and now Beck as not engaged in a discourse of ideas, but of
bombastic ridicule and name calling with an artifical and insincere individualism. What I hear is hate and ridicule coming from THEM.
And from the Left? Hey, I believe we may still find the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius" ... See how dated I am?
You're not referring to the "liberals" of the 18th century. Those folks were progressives and their philosophy was far more akin to to today's
libertarian philosophy than the modern philosophy supported by liberals.
The progressives of old were enlightened folks. The liberals of today are communists and socialists. I read this board a lot, mostly on the
political threads and most of the folks who consider themselves liberals are in reality progressives.
Below is a summary of the above paper. I think the title says it all.
"The Progressive Era: A Liberal Movement with Conservative Goals
Summary: The Progressive Era of the early twentieth century has been called a liberal movement and included a number of programs, such as
trust-busting, railroad regulation, and consumer protection, that favored a larger role for the federal government. However, the Progressives intended
through these programs to achieve conservative goals, such as greater competition in the marketplace, a stable economy, and the protection of American
The era between 1900 and 1914 has been called the progressive era and denoted as a liberal movement; however, the central end that the progressives
were trying to obtain was social, economic and political stability and prosperity, a more conservative goal. It was only the means by which the
progressives tried to accomplish their goals that were liberal. The progressive approach included a number of liberal programs that favored a larger
role of the federal government. Among these were trust-busting, railroad regulation and consumer protection. These initiatives were considered liberal
for their involvement of big government; however their goal was greater competition amongst capitalists and also the protection of America's consumer
populous which are conservative ideals.
Trust busting was a major aspect of the progressive agenda. Gaining much attention for his efforts against trusts,....."
The point being that these were pragmatic folks who looked to incrementally reform society. Today the "liberals" want to tear it down and start
over again. They abhor liberty. The "conservatives" of today are dogmatic by and large and do not recognize the issues in society that need to be
corrected. Both are a problem.
The US is made up of center-right and center-left progressives. We want problems solved in a pragmatic, incremental way. Pragmatic because it
can't be some utopian nonsense. Incremental because we, unlike politicians live in the real world and know that when you look to accomplish
something, especially something big you are going to need to change course, hence the all or nothing (like the 2,700 page health care reform bill in
the House) make no sense.
Gain common understanding in the center. Make progress. Create confidence in the fact that you can in fact produce results. Move on to the next
issue in the stream of issues.
We don't do this because both sides play an all or nothing game. They look to fundamentally change society in the 4-8 years they will be in power.
Until we get someone who can tell the poles of the spectrum to kiss their kiester and unite the left and right moderates, it will not get better.
The way we nominate the leaders of our political partys is a major factor in the lack of progress, but that is entirely another thread.
I don't consider my self conservative or liberal or a libertarian. I consider myself a progressive libertarian. I want positive change to tackle
the ills of society while maintaining the maximum level of liberty possible. If the two come into conflict, I pretty much always side with liberty
because it seems to me that if we're smart enough and try hard enough, most problems can be solved in such a manner that liberty is not diminished.
I hate Conservative Christians for the same reason I hate Liberal Christians as well as any Christian in general, because they are blatant hypocrites.
I would say 99% of "Christians" do not know that that means "Christ-like". Now when you meet some one who truly acts like that, please, I would
LOVE to meet them
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.