Christian Organizations Being Very Christian ... Again ...

May 2018
4,788
2,992
Chicago
#31
Agreed. The fundies, like militant atheists, are free to express their views, but I do not condone them and will actively refute them as I initially posted on this thread.

I don't know Tristan and can only go by what he posts and by the posts of which he supports such as this one: While you are correct, @RNG: Trists initial post didn't say anything because all he did was cut and paste a flamebait article and titling the thread. He didn't post a comment. However, when people like Leek posted their dribble and personal attacks, Trist quickly shows his support.

He did post this:


Here's an example of my point. Nazis march in Charlottesville, VA at the "Unite the Right" rally resulting on one woman murdered and 19 people injured by a Neo-Nazi. Trump's response? He didn't denounce the White Nationalists. He said both "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides " and "very fine people on both sides". Trump didn't march in the parade. He's never carried a Nazi or Confederate flag. In fact, on the surface, he seemed to play mediator, a voice of reason. You and I both know that is bullshit. He was giving tacit support to Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists. I see Trist doing exactly the same thing to by attacking me and supporting RW haters like @leekohler2.

Unite the Right rally - Wikipedia
Theme
Are you kidding me? I'm not a right winger. Nor did I post any personal attacks. GTF over yourself.
 
Likes: tristanrobin
Nov 2005
7,853
2,420
California
#33
Evangelical group wants gays removed from anti-lynching bill
Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver opposes including the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in a federal anti-lynching bill.

Groups like these always show their true colors in a variety of ways. They are disgusting and repugnant.
There are also examples of some supposedly "Christian" groups fighting against people trying to address anti-gay bullying. Some try to invoke "religious freedom" in their arguments...

While I recognize these bigoted groups that try to hide under the name of "Christian" are not indicative of the whole, they do have an overall effect. There have been some studies noting that the percentage of Christian adherents in the U.S. are dropping and one of the reasons stated is because people react to the less than "Christian" bigots.


Yes, they do. However, instead of painting all Christians (or any religious group) with the same brush as these assholes, why not push for better enforcement of tax-exempt status and beefing up the rules on political activities of 501(c)(3) organizations. That would allow legitimate religious groups to continue having tax exempt status and reveal douchebags like "Liberty Counsel" for who they are.
The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Organizations | Internal Revenue Service
I also wish the tax exempt status had better enforcement.
I don't see it happening because both sides egregiously abuse the classification in similar ways.


Second, I'm against "hate crimes". Murder is murder. Lynching, multiple shootings, burning and being dragged behind a car make a murder more heinous, but it shouldn't matter the religion, gender, skin tone or any other factor either the victim or the murderers. If a friend and I are murdered by the KKK with him being black and me being white, why should the murderers be charged with extra crimes for his murder and not mine? Isn't that racist?
You may already understand the below comments. If so, excuse me for being pedantic...

Hate crimes are truly about the motive being based on ___. The hate crime legislation doesn't talk about killing blacks. It talks about killing somebody because of their race.
Ergo, if a KKK member were to kill you because you were white, that would be a hate crime.
If a KKK member were to kill a black man because he wanted his parking spot (regardless of the race), that would not be a hate crime.

Not all murders are created "equal". If they were, then judges would simply have "one sentencing value" to apply in a case of a murder.
Instead, they have a range and they do take the motive into account as they see fit. Hate crimes are simply society telling the judiciary what motives they see as particularly heinous.

With that said, people may still oppose hate crimes understanding all of the above. I support them and in some ways I see them as society having a reaction to defenses like the Twinkie defense and gay panic defense.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2014
2,669
1,113
Heart of America
#35
...I also wish the tax exempt status had better enforcement.
I don't see it happening because both sides egregiously abuse the classification in similar ways.

You may already understand the below comments. If so, excuse me for being pedantic...

Hate crimes are truly about the motive being based on ___. The hate crime legislation doesn't talk about killing blacks. It talks about killing somebody because of their race.
Ergo, if a KKK member were to kill you because you were white, that would be a hate crime.
If a KKK member were to kill a black man because he wanted his parking spot (regardless of the race), that would not be a hate crime.

Not all murders are created "equal". If they were, then judges would simply have "one sentencing value" to apply in a case of a murder.
Instead, they have a range and they do take the motive into account as they see fit. Hate crimes are simply society telling the judiciary what motives they see as particularly heinous.

With that said, people may still oppose hate crimes understanding all of the above. I support them and in some ways I see them as society having a reaction to defenses like the Twinkie defense and gay panic defense.
Agreed on better enforcement, disagreed it can't be done. While you are correct both sides use it, both sides also agree on the abuse. Like the US-USSR SALT talks, an incremental agreement to change or enforce the rules would work. It might take a few years, but I think it's worth the effort.

Thank you for the calm explanation of "hate crimes", but I must still disagree. IMHO, it still makes special rules. You are correct that not all murders are created equal. There's a big difference between a mugger shooting someone for their wallet and a couple of depraved individuals dragging a man to death behind their car.
 
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#37
The bill is just another example of liberals moving the country further towards a banana republic.

I do not know anything about this organization, but if the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled them a terrorist organization, then then I would support them.
because you are a terrorist
 
Likes: tristanrobin
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#38
The bill is just another example of liberals moving the country further towards a banana republic.

I do not know anything about this organization, but if the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled them a terrorist organization, then then I would support them.
lol banana republic like these banana republics ?Most Liberal Countries 2018
n 2017, Movehub used three different surveys taken in 2016 to find the most liberal nations in the world. The study uses the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap report, the Environmental Performance Index, and the Social Progress Index and looked at categories including LGBT tolerance, religious tolerance, and gender parity.

According to this study, Iceland was found to be the most liberal nation in the world. This country had the smallest gender pay gap in the world and was also one of the most eco-friendly.

Finland and Sweden were ranked second and third, respectively. Finland ranked high in health and safety, while Sweden ranked high in gender equality.

The top 10 nation on this list are:

 
Nov 2005
7,853
2,420
California
#40
Agreed on better enforcement, disagreed it can't be done. While you are correct both sides use it, both sides also agree on the abuse. Like the US-USSR SALT talks, an incremental agreement to change or enforce the rules would work. It might take a few years, but I think it's worth the effort.
To clarify, I'm not saying "it can't be done".
I'm saying it "won't" be done. Dems and Repubs are in power. They'll happily look the other way.
There has been saber rattling on this issue before and it's never really amounted to anything.

[Bad Bob]: It might take a few years, but I think it's worth the effort.
I agree it's worth the effort. If it were to actually get momentum and start, it would take years.
If it gets started, I will be pleasantly amazed.


Thank you for the calm explanation of "hate crimes", but I must still disagree. IMHO, it still makes special rules. You are correct that not all murders are created equal. There's a big difference between a mugger shooting someone for their wallet and a couple of depraved individuals dragging a man to death behind their car.
There is some additional discussion out there regarding other justifications for hate crime legislation.
For example, SCOTUS heard a case a long time ago about the legality of hate crimes. They pointed out that one of the effects of hate crimes is to terrorize / intimidate the community of the targeted characteristic.
For a comparison, think of the country's response when a group of terrorists targeted us on 9/11 because we were American. In essence, that was a hate crime as well.
But even in that, one could raise a comparison between the effect and rational recognition of the actual threat. One could question whether the motive of the attacker was truly to terrorize and whether he should be culpable for other people's emotions he didn't intend.

Regardless, I honestly appreciate when people can acknowledge the truth in how hate crimes actually "function" and still don't agree with them. I get annoyed with the amount of people who refuse to comprehend that blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, gays, straights, ... Everybody is protected by hate crimes.
Even when I point to the FBI statistics on hate crimes that show that 20.5% of hate crimes based on race were anti-white (and similar statistics), some people refuse to comprehend it. The SCOTUS case I mentioned above involved a group of black people targeting a white person.
But I digress on things that are not truly relevant to your position.
 
Likes: leekohler2