SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. “When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina said. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. “You’ve got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,” former president Bill Clinton said in March. “And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.”
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @12:24PM
Nope. They dump openly on Christianity, no matter how mainstream or how "extremist", while clamoring for the "rights" of Islam and sharia law.
Tell me - what neighborhoods in the United States have vigilante Christians posted to prevent non-Christians from entering? Maybe you would like to google "Muslim no-go zone" to see what Islam has in mind for America?
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/dearborn-no-go-zone-where-islam-rules-and-christians-are-stoned [clarionproject.org]
http://www.inquisitr.com/1763922/americans-beware-muslim-no-go-zones-are-here-in-the-united-states-video/ [inquisitr.com]
Snopes claims that it's all a hoax - but you can watch the freaking video of Moslem mobs stoning Christians who dare to speak up.
Find me a video of Christians stoning Muslims. Find one of Christians stoning homos. Find any of Christians stoning women for failing to cover their faces.
Don't give me that hypocritical shit. Open your eyes and look. In the mideast today, Muslims are killing Yazidi Christians just for being Christian. You don't find Christians ANYWHERE in the world slaughtering non-believers just for being non-believers.
Pull your head out, and put the Kool-Aid down. Islam has NOTHING in common with liberalism. Want to be a liberal? I have an idea - BE A LIBERAL!! Dump the Democrat party, and act LIBERAL. You'll respect yourself a lot more, I'll respect you some, the world will respect you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:00PM
God you're dumb.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fadrian on Monday April 06 2015, @01:36PM
Even though I'm not religious, Amen.
That is all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:18PM
Like burning Christian crosses on lawns in a neighborhood where a black man had the gumption to break God's law and get run into by a white woman? Yes, it was 50 years ago, but it's not like it was in the middle ages.
If you prefer more modern examples, there are people in the US who in the name of Christianity try to interrupt funerals for gay people. Or the places where they try to (are enacting God's Law, or "sharia" if you prefer a non-English word) to block abortion clinics. And didn't President Bush bring the country to war because "God told him to" (or maybe it was just he "consulted with God")?
As a side note, I'm sure you'll find lots of liberals do criticize the Democratic party. There is a reason why many classify themselves "libertarian." For what it's worth, the Democratic Party (and "the left") in the US is very different than political liberalism, much like the Republican Party (and "the right") in the US is very different than political conservatism.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:30PM
Your ignorance is overwhelming. Tell me - WHICH CHURCH endorsed those actions?
No, I'm not denying that some people burnt crosses on black family's lawns. I'm denying that ANY CHURCH ENDORSED THOSE ACTIONS!
Find me a church that endorses, encourages, and openly flaunts these actions.
Now, tell me, WTF is going on in the mideast today? ISIS is openly destroying historical sites, trying to destroy any cultural ties with the past, killing anyone who isn't Muslim.
Did you read about that hit on the university? A gunman demands that you recite some passage from the Quran - you fail, he puts a bullet in your head. How is that for tolerance and acceptance?
Once again - people better pull their heads out of their orifices, or that same shit will be happening here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @05:23PM
So, tell me. Which Mosques preach no-go zones, stoning christians and "Jihad"? You can't switch from bashing ALL Muslims as a whole based on the actions of a few to then trying to defend christians from christian extremism by trying to separate them based on a per church basis. You are desperately grasping at straws, and might I add: missing by a long shot, trying to make your point here.
In the end, you are the ignoramus who is spouting nonsense.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:16PM
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=imam%20preaches%20jihad [google.com]
Number two hit in that search has in imam near Washington D.C. who answers to your description.
Third hit has another imam who has connections to D.C. and New York.
Fifth hit another imam in Chicago.
Sixth hit cites the FBI as stating that 10% of imams in the US preach jihad.
Next to the last hit on the page has another in Tennessee.
I leave it to you to browse the following pages. Jihad and hatred of the United States, as well as hatred of infidels is widespread throughout the Muslim world.
Perhaps you need to read this assessment - it's been published many times, but it seems liberals never get the message:
https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_muslim_population_of_america_is_expanding_at_warp_speed.html [americanthinker.com]
To summarize an oft-quoted section:
When the Muslim population remains at or under 2%, their presence tends to fly low under the radar. In the 2% – 5% range, Muslims begin to seek converts, targeting those they see as disaffected, such as criminals. When the population reaches 5% they exert influence disproportionate to their numbers, becoming more aggressive and pushing for Sharia law. When the population hits the 10% mark Muslims become increasingly lawless and violent. Once the population reaches 20%, there is an increase in rioting, murder, jihad militias, and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship. At 40%, there are “widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.” Once beyond 50%, infidels and apostates are persecuted, genocide occurs, and Sharia law is implemented. After 80%, intimidation is a daily part of life along with violent jihad and some state-run genocide as the nation purges all infidels. Once the nation has rid itself of all non-Muslims, the presumption is that ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ has been attained – the Islamic House of Peace.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @08:05PM
I'm not going to argue that Muslim clerics aren't preaching violence and hatred against gays and non Muslims. There are certainly those who are. When someone countered your arguments by mentioning Christian extremism you tried to dodge them by demanding the individual church containing said preachers be named.
counter example:
If we allowed the loony christian extremists to have their way, what would the USA look like? My bet is... no wait, *I guarantee you* we wouldn't look much different than any of the "modern" oppressive Muslim nations. We would be indistinguishable.
Bottom line: All religion should perish. We have no need for silly beliefs. If you want to be spiritual, fine. Just keep it to yourself.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:21PM
The proof that you are wrong, is the fact that Christianity ruled this country for years. We still have remnants of that rule - so-called "Blue Laws" for instance. Despite the "intolerance" of Christians, we have what we have today, do we not?
When you speak of "extremist Christians" in the United States, you are just blathering.
One of our more horrific episodes in Christian America was the Salem witch trials. What happened there? Did the federal government come in, and outlaw any future witch trials? Nope. The state got involved, but the state didn't even pass any laws regarding witch trials. What really happened was, the church leadership was rational enough to realize what happened - and they put a stop to witch trials.
Do you see this happening in Islam today? No - you do not. Instead, you see Muslims clamoring for the right to impose Sharia law on their communities, their nations, their neighbors. The LOVE to put people to death in messy ways. Christianity was shamed by their excesses, while Islam begs for ever greater excesses.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 06 2015, @09:28PM
Yea. And? So what Christianity ruled this country. It is still a majority and still influences the daily lives of people and government. Why do you think we still have morons trying to re-enable religious freedoms by denying people service using their religious beliefs as an excuse? If you don't think that is extremism then you need help. I'll grant you that most of the stuff coming from present day Muslims is bat shit insane. But it does not reflect all Muslims. And it is not unique to them.
Remnants yes but not too long ago Christianity was much more oppressive in this country. Women couldn't vote and lacked many rights which was supported by christianity: http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html [biblicalnonsense.com]
Slavery was also defended by christianity [google.com]
Need I go on? And lets just ignore the middle ages when people were tortured and horrifically executed for heresy, homosexuality and other things deemed unsavory by the church. As a modern nation we evolved to become better people.
Islamic extremism is actually a more recent problem after the governments of the USA and others decided to become oil company whores. They started mucking around and wound up destroying progressive democratic governments (see Afghanistan) in order to ensure that oil companies had dibs on middle eastern oil reserves. Who put Saddam in power and armed the Taliban? The US government. My cheap whore of a government actually fucked up entire nations so some dynasty can waltz in and drill for oil. If they didn't destroy those nations and install friendly oppressive governments then those people would tell them to piss off and sell the oil themselves. Couldn't have that now could we? So we pissed all over them until we have the mess we have today. If the USA and others did not actively destroy the middle east for the past 60+ years then we would not have the problems we have today.
Correct! The Federal government didn't put a stop to it because it didn't exist for at least another 80 years.
The state of Massachusetts did not exist either, it was a crown colony called Province of Massachusetts Bay.
So are you denying their existence, ignoring their presence or defending them?
Are all muslims begging for it unanimously? Or more likely, a few nut jobs using their oppression combined with their common beliefs as a tool for manipulation? In my opinion, Europe screwed themselves by letting so many Muslim immigrants in, millions of them. All the while, where are they getting jobs, living and becoming educated? The overcrowding combined with discrimination has further pushed them down. What do they have left? What do they have in common to find solice? Answer: Religion. I guarantee you if the European Muslim population had jobs, money and went to school we would not see the current behaviour.
And Christianity had plenty of gruesome, violent excess but it thankfully calmed down some a long, long time ago.
Been awake and had a few cups already. Thank you very much.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:31PM
The US is not and never was a Christian theocracy. Christianity has never ruled the US.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:40PM
I'd like to somewhat disagree with you. While yes, we are not a christian theocracy, our government has enacted laws shaped by the christian religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:15PM
None of which are specific to or only exist in Christianity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:31PM
> Find me a church that endorses, encourages, and openly flaunts these actions.
Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan [splcenter.org]
Church of the American Knights of the KKK [adl.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:35PM
> No, I'm not denying that some people burnt crosses on black family's lawns.
> I'm denying that ANY CHURCH ENDORSED THOSE ACTIONS!
The Church of Jesus Christ-Christian [jta.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @09:45PM
Like burning Christian crosses on lawns in a neighborhood where a black man had the gumption to break God's law and get run into by a white woman? Yes, it was 50 years ago, but it's not like it was in the middle ages.
No, it still happens. [abc27.com]
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Monday April 06 2015, @02:31PM
Sounds like you want to be exactly like them, just on the other side of the fence...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM
I think you are projecting.
Want to play some numbers games? Compare the number of people put to death throughout all of the Inquisitions in Europe, to the number of non-Muslims killed in the past year or two by ISIS. Islam is a truly malignant movement.
Like them, you say? Sonny, if I kill someone, they will be armed, they will be facing me, and they will have some kind of a sporting chance to defend themselves. Have you seen the images of Muslims blowing out the brains of infants, because their parents were Christians? Killing Kurdish babies? ANY babies, it doesn't matter, so long as they aren't Muslim. And, if they do happen to kill a Muslim baby, well, Allahu Akbar - Allah's will be done.
TRANSLATION: Kill them all, let God sort them out.
THAT IS ISLAM!
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:17PM
yes, extremists are bad and should be stopped.
and there you go off the rails with faulty generalizations. [wikipedia.org] try again without the sophistry.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:40PM
Sophistry my arse. Look at the world today. Where are all the trouble spots? Where are people dying en masse? Who is doing the killing? TODAY, not a thousand years ago, or even five hundred years ago. Christianity was never this extreme, and it has mellowed over time. Count the bodies.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And, no, you do NOT get to claim that either Hitler or Stalin were Christian, or that they committed their crimes in the name of Christianity, or in the name of God.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @06:55PM
like i said, extremists are bad. using extremists to generalize an entire religion is fallicious, specifically faulty generalization. even if you're fine with people using Westboro Baptist Church and the Church of the American Knights of the KKK to generalize for all Christians, its still a faulty generalization and thus not valid.
again, try again with the sophistry. either put together - at minimum - a logically consistent argument or stfu. your constant spewing of fallicious, hate-filled arguments only makes your own religion look just as bad as what you're claiming of another religion which you obviously know nothing about.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @07:01PM
"which you obviously know nothing about."
Now you claim to know Islam? Are you Muslim? No?
The sophistry is all one-sided here. Islam incites violence throughout the Pacific island nations, throughout Asia, and it is beginning to be violent in Europe. Africa has known nothing but violence for decades, most of it Islamic.
The sophistry is coming from your side of this - uhhhh - discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:03PM
> Now you claim to know Islam? Are you Muslim? No?
He might not be. But my wife and inlaws are and they are nothing like the bullshit you are selling.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:16PM
Buddhists are killing people in Burma, Sri Lanka, Indonesia. Christians are killing in Ethiopia and Eastern Europe. Muslims are killing in the Middle East. Quit being a closed-minded ignorant dick and actually think about the world you live in. Also, Christianity was MORE extreme. During the Crusades, it was straight up religious genocide all day. Muslims have Sunni-Shiite, Christians had massive wars between Protestants and Catholics, and also between Catholic sects and many different purges of heretics and the like. In fact, Protestants and Catholics are STILL killing each other in Eastern Europe.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:21PM
Christians are killing in Eastern Europe? Maybe you have a link to that. I'm aware of some fascist rat bastards who are intent on ethnic cleansing of Ukraine - but I was NOT aware that those fascists were invoking the Name of God in their war against Russian speaking people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:37PM
Its not Eastern Europe, but here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org] you go.
No True Scottsman, ahoy!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:45PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/06/middleeast/iraq-mass-graves/index.html?eref=edition [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:49PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-trial/boston-marathon-bombing-trial-reaches-closing-stages-n336201 [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @03:14PM
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
ISIS (or what everyone who actually lives in the Middle East calls "Daesh") is currently a declared enemy of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, UAE, and Syria, and is widely opposed by most of the residents of the Middle East as well as by their governments. It's about the only thing that everybody in the Middle East agrees on. The only reason Daesh has any kind of traction whatsoever is that the governments in Baghdad and Damascus have been even worse to the residents of the area now controlled by Daesh than Daesh has been.
The reason that liberals tend to be supportive of Islam is not because they support terrorism or stoning people to death, but because the vast majority of Muslims don't actually behave like that and blaming them all for that is both bigoted and wildly inaccurate. Mosques don't, as a rule, promote terrorism as an appropriate action to take, and numerous clerics and scholars have spoken out against it (sometimes risking their life to do so). Your average Muslim basically wants a good job, a reasonable guarantee of personal safety, and time to spend with his family - in other words, what your average Christian wants.
Liberals also are quite supportive of liberal Christianity: When Pope Francis goes around emphasizing taking care of poor people, liberals are happy to support it. Heck, many liberals *are* Christians - I've found people with liberal views in Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal (Anglican), black Baptist, and congregational churches.
Also, if you're looking for some bad stuff that Christian churches have endorsed:
- Christian ministers pushed Uganda to pass a law that allowed the government to round up and kill homosexual people (they eventually were convinced to change that to locking them up for life). Hundreds of thousands of people have signed on to a similar measure in California.
- There are many Christian ministers who endorse the utter slaughter of the non-Jewish residents of the Middle East. They're truly upset that the US isn't at war with Iran right now.
- There are many Christian churches that advocate the male head of household beating his wife and children. In addition, many Christian leaders do not consider it rape if a husband forces his wife to have sex.
- Many Christians (and pretty much all Jews, for that matter) endorse male genital mutilation a.k.a. circumcision.
- Many Christian churches historically were advocates of racial segregation and discrimination. More than a few had ties to the KKK.
- Many Christian churches oppose abortions that are necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
- Many Christians in the United States endorse very publicly the idea that Christians should have more political rights than everybody else.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:33PM
"(sometimes risking their life to do so)"
Imagine that. When was the last time the Pope, or a bishop, issued a fatwah against some other cleric with different views? What barbarians - and you help to make my point.
Your points against Christianity are noted. Also noted, are the lack of citations.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @06:53PM
Here is another citation for you to ignore:
Lord's Resistance Army [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04PM
Uh-huh. And, who endorses this "army"? The pope? American baptists?
Maybe you should read the article you cite in it's entirety. It explains who and what the "Lord's Army" is. It could go further in depth with the explanation, but it most assuredly makes the point that it is NOT part of Christianity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:09PM
You've got a big case of no true scottsman fallacy going on there.
> And, who endorses this "army"? The pope? American baptists?
So if religious authorities fail to endorse a sect that makes the sect not part of the religion?
What if religious authorities actively denounce a sect? [mediamatters.org]
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Monday April 06 2015, @07:52PM
Death of Savita Halappanavar:
The death of Savita Halappanavar on 28 October 2012, at University Hospital Galway in Ireland, led to nationwide protests—which spilled over into India, Britain and many other countries—calling for a review of the abortion laws in Ireland. Halappanavar, a woman of Indian origin, was suffering from a miscarriage (which was later assessed to be most likely due to a bacterial infection), when she was some 17 weeks pregnant, she sought medical attention and treatment at University Hospital Galway. Beginning no earlier than the date of her hospital admission on October 21, her requests for an abortion were refused, instead being told that due to her fetus retaining a heartbeat and her life not appearing to be in physiological danger, this was not legal. On one occasion she was told "it was the law, that this is a Catholic country." On the night of October 23, according to Praveen, her husband, Halappanavar was standing in a restroom and collapsed. The following day the foetal remains were removed from her womb on 24 October in the operating theatre due to a diagnosis of septic shock being made by a consultant, per Irish law. Savita Halappanavar's septicemia further deteriorated despite being treated with oral antibiotics for infection since late October 22 and intravenous antibiotics since October 24. Both were ineffective and her condition rapidly evolved to the point of organ failure and finally cardiac arrest and death on 28 October 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar [wikipedia.org]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:29PM
Doctors were less than competent - and they allowed their religious beliefs to interfere with their diagnosis. Got it - and your point? Oh - abortion. Well - I'm opposed to abortion in general, so I can't follow you on that line of thought. I can agree if you are condemning those doctors for incompetence.
Oh - you're trying to make a case that incompetent doctors are a Christian thing? I certainly hope not!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:30PM
I think the point is that religion (specifically the Roman Catholic form of Christianity in that case) interfered with proper medical care. The religiously inspired laws directly contributed to that woman's death. You can't simply call the doctors incompetent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday April 06 2015, @08:08PM
WRT circumcision:
Male circumcision has arguments in it's favor, as well as against it. It does, e.g., offer a measure of protection against some diseases. It's not profoundly disabling. (There are those who claim a minor decrease in sensitivity, but I doubt that there can have been reasonable comparison studies, so I feel free to doubt them.)
OTOH, other similar practices, e.g. subincision, or when circumcision is performed in a non-sterile environment, etc. really are difficult to accept. I understand their historic rationale, but I still find them hard to accept. Also I'm assuming that circumcision is performed under an anesthetic (local).
Even so, this is a matter that is ... I have difficulty accepting it as desirable. I just don't consider it horrible. Perhaps if I had not been circumcised as an infant I'd have a different feeling. I doubt that it would be more positive.
Still, I don't think that it's correct to lump circumcision in with the other abominations committed by those Churches and Ministers that, without much contradiction, call themselves Christian. But do note that many Christian Churches and Ministers don't accept the abominations that you recite as valid Christian behavior. And certainly the New Testament gives them scant grounds for acceptance.
The Muslim situation is a bit different. Their primary source book was written by a Religious leader engaged in armed struggle for dominance, and it reflects that. There has been a great Muslim civilizations that did not consider those an essential part of the teaching (at least the fragmentary records seem to indicate that), but it was wiped out by the Mongols. The survivors were from the fringe, and again needed to practice the military virtues, and ignore the military vices. This has created a quite unfortunate religion that the planet would be much better off without, but there's no obvious reasonable way to get from here to there. The ideal way would be to de-emphasize the effects of religion in communal life, but many people seem to have an inbuilt need for some "great sky father", however unreasonable that may be. And certainly there are plenty of reasons to not trust those who are guided by non-religious emotions. They are often merely power seekers, and have no care for ethics. (I'd say "or morals" but too many people read that as sexual, which is only vaguely related to what I'm talking about.)
Please note: One shouldn't whitewash the vile Christian behaviors on a wide scale just because it is currently restricted to relatively powerless groups. But the New Testament doesn't give them valid religious grounds for their behavior. So that is probably more a matter of "the love of power entices the corrupt, and further corrupts those it entices", and ANY group that seizes power on that scale should not be trusted. No matter HOW they got it. The Catholic Church became powerful through largely peaceful means, if you exclude things like the forcible conversion under Constantine and Charlemagne. And you will have to excuse me if I consider that more a means of shrewd amoral politicians seeing a path to power. Then, of course, it was powerful, and embraced the amoral corruptions of power rather then attending to the actual religious message. But do note that as soon as the Christians became powerful, rather than abolishing the arena they started sending Pagans to it. (And I must admit that even in this case I'm avoiding such things as the massacre of the Nazarenes under a Christian general of a Roman army. This lead to the destruction of those maintaining (as near as can be told) the original Christian belief...whatever it was. The New Testament is a grossly unreliable source in this matter, being mainly that which the Christian group at Rome found acceptable and desirable. Much was censored long before the Council of Nicea, but nobody is quite sure what it said. That it may well have been radically different is shown by how different the Gospel of Thomas (from the Coptic Church) is from the others. but this doesn't mean it was like that, either. All of the "official documents" were preserved by some group with a particular ax to grind. The variation from different sources (and forgive me if I count the standard New Testament as being from only one source, but it came under the power of the Church of Rome. I believe that the Nazarenes has a quite different set of beliefs, just judging from fragmentary records I've encountered. The Byzantine Church and the Church of Rome made various agreements as to what should be included, so their general agreement doesn't count for much. And both gave clear evidence that they were more interested in power than in purity of doctrine (unlike the Jews arguing over the meaning of the Torah, who seem to have given priority of purity of doctrine, even if they seem to have occasionally gotten it wrong).
FWIW, most Muslims seem concerned with purity of doctrine. If I thought more highly of their doctrine than I'd approve of this more. And with most doctrines different groups hit on different parts as the most important. So many Muslims actually are peaceful, and see their religion as peaceful, despite the literal reading of the scripture if you give equal weight to all parts. Unfortunately, there are enough parts encouraging violence that purity of doctrine doesn't provide any shield against the more violent desires that some people have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Monday April 06 2015, @09:54PM
I think people got it backwards. There is no good liberal Christianity against bad Christian fundamentalism.
The faith is fundamental by definition. Deploring fundamentalism is being a troll or having been trolled, because a Christian fundamentalist is a Christian, can't do anything but follow the word and example of the guy called Christ (with the problem of trusting written words, or the tradition, or the examples of earlier believers), who was a pretty harmless guy.
Some examples you reported are clearly not following the words nor the example of Christ.
Forcing people to follow your belief is especially anti Christ, the guy never ever forced anybody. Attention to sexual issues is also suspect because the guy never raised the subject (being adulterous is a breach of social contract more that a sexual issue). What about discussing the things that made Christ angry in the temple, instead?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:46PM
I don't think I've ever met a self-proclaimed Christian who followed the words or example of Christ. Every single one I've met just cherrypicked and twisted the scripture to support their pre-determined biases and prejudices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:15AM
There is a word for people who cherrypick facts to support their pre-determined biases and prejudices: "People"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @11:03PM
That, in essence, is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: I was responding to the argument that Christians don't endorse awful things by pointing out many awful things that were indeed endorsed by Christian leaders. The answer of "Well, they aren't real Christians" doesn't hold any more weight than the argument (which many have made in the Muslim world) that Daesh leader Ibrihim al-Badri is not a true Muslim.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:15PM
I don't think that the No True Scotsman fallacy applies here. Being a Scotsman (or whatever) is both an inherent quality and one that does not prescribe behaviour. Being a member of a religion however has neither of these traits (even though most people only belong to their religion because of what they were raised to believe by their family and society, it is still not an inherent quality). It does prescribe behaviour. So if you belong to Religion X, and it says "Don't kill under any circumstances" and you go around killing people, I think that that disqualifies you from being properly called a member of that religion because you are not following the prescription. If there are many such prescriptions (as there usually are), how many you follow properly I think qualifies you as being "more or less" of a member of that religion, and if not all then you can say that they are not a "true" member. NTS only applies when characteristics are being talked about that do not have anything to do with the actual quality or requisites of the thing being discussed (such as wearing a kilt a certain way for a Scotsman, since the only thing necessary to be a "True" Scotsman is to be born in Scotland).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:09AM
I agree, but at the same time I don't. The only way we can know somebody's belief system is by them self-identifying it, and the church isn't going to ban people from attending because they don't follow Christ's teachings perfectly, so even if they do the opposite of every single teaching in the book they can still be "Christian", otherwise we need new terms for people who state they have a certain belief system but whose actions say otherwise.
When it comes to religion, whatever they self-identify as is their religion is their religion, whether they practice it or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:51AM
No True Scotsman applies when someone completely arbitrarily decides that someone isn't a True X even when they fit the definition.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:25PM
> Muslims are killing Yazidi Christians just for being Christian.
Yazidi aren't christian any more than they are muslim.
> You don't find Christians ANYWHERE in the world slaughtering non-believers just for being non-believers.
Sure. Christians aren't emptying entire muslim villiages in the Central African Republic. [reuters.com]
The overwhelming majority of ISIS's victims are muslims. Your hang-up on christian victims makes it sound like you watch the 700 club because that's the kind of myopic stupidity that robertson regularly puts out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:56PM
> Find one of Christians stoning homos.
Your word choice is pretty revealing there.
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:07PM
Wow, you think assholes getting mobbed for xenophobic/racist/religiously inflammatory shirts and posters means sharia law is in effect? I was just in Dearborn yesterday, no problems at all. Maybe that's just because I'm not a complete dick.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:27PM
Yes, assholes being mobbed is a sign of the "peaceful religion", right?
So - you're ready to justify a mob of people stoning gays, the next time THOSE assholes hold a gay pride rally? Same thing, Pal. A mob is a mob.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:22PM
> A mob is a mob.
EXACTLY!!!!
Mob violence has no religion, no race, no culture. It is a human thing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 06 2015, @09:41PM
Tell me - what neighborhoods in the United States have vigilante Christians posted to prevent non-Christians from entering?
The No-Go zones have been so througoughly debunked that even Fox News apologized for covering them.
It must take actual effort to purposely keep yourself this misinformed.
Fox News corrects, apologizes for ‘no-go zone’ remarks [washingtonpost.com]