Just as you would distinguish between branches of Islam that commit such atrocities, you should differentiate between Christians. There are those of us, myself included, who loathe how certain sects fixate on homosexuals, abortion and other social issues. We see Christianity not as a means of morally policing the world and imposing judgment, but a belief in treatment of all humanity with equal love, compassion and respect. To use the term "Christian" in your description of certain close-minded, misguided groups, is no better than using the blanket term "Muslim" to describe all acts of violence perpetrated by extremists.
It's almost certain that Brewer will veto it, but it does seem to be getting closer to passing in various places. Will be interesting to see what crazy state pulls this off first.
Because at no time in human history has the Christion religion been institutionalized? I don't understand why people always pretend something new has happened.
1) Full disclosure, I trust data from hard sciences more than soft science. Why? because the location and size of sample set is specific for the particular result it generates. And the other barrier to reproduce it can have an astronomical cost to redo or clarify the survey results. Lastly, I can pick it apart easier, rather than relying on one comprehensive survey database that everyone drinks the well from but has to Have Faith that it's in the straight and narrow. Furthermore, the paper and journal are under a paid firewall. Which means, I can't dig deeper into their data and determine what methodologies and controls they used to gather their conclusions, a conclusion your reply assumes has been vetted properly (transparently?) by the researchers and journal. It's obvious the researchers did this for a political reason. Soft sciences is given a greater leeway to make liberties with causation and correlations, but you know what, I don't have to accept their bull**** "educated guesses" about why their data is the way it is and that they include it in their paper reflects more off of their emotional reasoning than their scientific analyses. It's the classic bait and switch marketers and politicians use against their audience, and if this gimmick taken as standard for published research, then they're no better off than the first two groups. How could this have been done right, IMO? Isolate the possible causes and conclusions from your reporting. Generate conclusions and a dataset that allows people to reproduce in an economical and progressive fashion. Add transparency to avoid hiding behind "established data" that could change as fast as we ditch cell phones for the next greatest thing. 2) I can concede how sham is hyperbole if we can both agree that publishing this "legit work of science" is a disgrace. It certainly cements soft science as a red headed step-child of sorts...
Wow, I can't believe I'm back in the D&D. But your post was enough to bring me back momentarily. Your generalizations and hate are unequaled in the D&D. My most sincere congratulations.
Nope! Believe me, my comments pale compared to the xenophobia and homophobia displayed by others here in D&D in the past. And BTW Clutch has rules about political posts in signatures. You might want to look into them.
If you are upset at Christians being compared to the Taliban, why don't you do something about the Christians that are trying to make their religious ideas the law of the land for everyone. Muslims are often told to speak out against other Muslims who use the name of Islam to do things that are against what the majority believe in as the Islamic religion. Maybe we Christians should do the same thing.
Something that's been done before, doesn't mean it isn't still bad. I think you're making a leap to assume people believe it's new. I haven't seen anyone suggesting such a thing.
So back to the question Why don't we ban Christianity ? Let's just try it. Worst thing is you'll treat your wife a little better, respect your neighbors regardless of their sexual orientation, and probably spend your Sunday mornings more productively.
And cause the second American civil war. I hate religion also, and I know you are being facetious but banning a religion will have far more negative consequences than positive ones, the biggest one being civil war. Americans love their religion and are willing to die to believe in their invisible friend.
Government has no power to do that. And if they do, then its an abhorrent violation of civil rights. If Christianity dies via social progression then that is fine, but government action towards that would empower Christians, not put them down. As of yet, we should be thankful Christians in this country are far more rational and milder than say Muslims in the Middle East. If the worst abuses from Christianity in this country is verbal and legislative abuse; I can somewhat tolerate that.
While we are at it, lets ban liberalism...... Worst thing is you'll have a wife(not a husband, dog, or what ever you progressos are in to these days), respect your neighbors regardless of their income bracket, and probably spend Sunday mornings less stressed about life
The theologians I take advice from do not think the government and Christianity intermix, simply because Christians should be more focused on cultural morality rather than secular law. Besides, Christians do not have sharia law, and they certainly do not want a theocratic state. I refuse to find mc mark's statement comparing Christians to the Taliban acceptable. The two cannot be more loosely connected, and I do not appreciate being compared to a group suppressing women, promoting human trafficking, and massacring civilians. Way of life in Afghanistan prior to the Taliban had moved towards more rights for women, including allowing women to walk freely without a head scarf. When the Taliban imposed their will, they restricted any liberal ways of thinking in the country.
You are comparing ALL Christians to the Taliban. I don't think bigtexxx calling Obama a socialist is nearly as extreme.
It seems like an answer that both Christians and Muslims answer when someone calls out the fundamentalists of their respective religion. I've been around Muslims my entire life(raised in a Muslim household) and their answer is along the same lines as yours: 'Those who do the crazy of our religions are not actually a part of our religion'.... The two faiths are more similar than you think.
I love it when those responsible for promoting discrimination are trying to turn around play the victim card. You know, this crap legislation may have been sponsored by politicians that are well-educated (attorneys and such), but there is absolutely no degree of intelligent thinking put into this bill. Backwards thinking all around.
