U.S. - Christian pastors praising Orlando shooter

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


YEH, yeh  Didgerii...

And what about those times that the English gov'ts of the day made it illegal for the Welsh and Scottish native tongues to be taught, or even spoken, in schools over there..

Wasn't all that long ago either, was it ?   Only a few years back..
The same English guvm'nts that kept local native populations out of the census figures for the colonies, no doubt...    

Another glowing sign of ignorance to add to some of the other poor posts.
This is the point, that it was once wrong and how societies have progressed.

On top of that we have the usual still defence of a belief, because people cannot differentiate between a people and a belief.
Martin Luther king never shied away from being critical of racism, as racism is a belief and he did so knowing this would no doubt offend somen racists. Its the belief being rightly attacked for why its wrong, not the concept of a white race or the people themselves being attacked. Hence the absurdity of a previous reply. All I am seeing is that the so called champions of of the oppressed, are nothing of the sort. Their action is the same with Syria.

Inaction.

They will not champion the cause of groups that suffer inequality. In fear that thia may offend some religious people. Then that is basically saying get stuffed to those oppressed. Where again its because of the religion and a luteral belief, that the problem stems from an over sensitivity. This is due because some of these religions are geared up to being incapable of admitting such a view is wrong. As to do that, means questioning their whole belief system and their deity Hence literal belief, is so dangereous. But as I say, this is surrendering to inequality, rendering the oppressed as secondary. To the protection of a belief, just because it may offend someone. Its the most backward regressive stance that is why we are seeing instead of progression of late, but instead people bringing us backwards, by defending poor beliefs.

Again its because people spoke out against slavery, which was endorsed by Christianity, that helped changed perceptions.
The same with womens rights etc. So why is it the left are continually in conflict, that they fear wrongly being labbled a bigot for speaking critical of beliefs that effect the well being of others and trheir equality?

Its simple, they treat certain groups as inferior and give those groups that much more leway, and thus allow and continuation of the suffering of groups, as they can live with that, but it would be unspeakable to speak out against a religious belief. Even when they daily speak out against political beliefs.

The contradiction is so bad, is embarressing to even attempt to reason with them.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

Another glowing sign of ignorance to add to some of the other poor posts.
This is the point, that it was once wrong and how societies have progressed.

On top of that we have the usual still defence of a belief, because people cannot differentiate between a people and a belief.
Martin Luther king never shied away from being critical of racism, as racism is a belief and he did so knowing this would no doubt offend somen racists. Its the belief being rightly attacked for why its wrong, not the concept of a white race or the people themselves being attacked. Hence the absurdity of a previous reply. All I am seeing is that the so called champions of of the oppressed, are nothing of the sort. Their action is the same with Syria.

Inaction.

They will not champion the cause of groups that suffer inequality. In fear that thia may offend some religious people. Then that is basically saying get stuffed to those oppressed. Where again its because of the religion and a luteral belief, that the problem stems from an over sensitivity. This is due because some of these religions are geared up to being incapable of admitting such a view is wrong. As to do that, means questioning their whole belief system and their deity Hence literal belief, is so dangereous. But as I say, this is surrendering to inequality, rendering the oppressed as secondary. To the protection of a belief, just because it may offend someone. Its the most backward regressive stance that is why we are seeing instead of progression of late, but instead people bringing us backwards, by defending poor beliefs.

Again its because people spoke out against slavery, which was endorsed by Christianity, that helped changed perceptions.
The same with womens rights etc. So why is it the left are continually in conflict, that they fear wrongly being labbled a bigot for speaking critical of beliefs that effect the well being of others and trheir equality?

Its simple, they treat certain groups as inferior and give those groups that much more leway, and thus allow and continuation of the suffering of groups, as they can live with that, but it would be unspeakable to speak out against a religious belief. Even when they daily speak out against political beliefs.

The contradiction is so bad, is embarressing to even attempt to reason with them.

He's referring to the Not Welsh policy.    My family are Welsh descent, and I've attended a Welsh speaking school, albeit briefly.   It wasn't a pleasant experience as I was totally ostracised by the Welsh as they spoke their language without me.  I was left at the back of the class to get on with it.   But hey ho... I  got very good at drawing horses heads.

On a less light note....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schools

eddie wrote:Try shutting the fuck up. Why have you come and started insulting me for no reason?

eddie wrote:Well I can't be as slow as you at learning Didge, can I?
Nobody makes the same mistakes with as many people as you.

And I will comment what I like when I like.
If you don't like it ignore it
Report it
Or fuck off.

Either of those options is fine with me.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is someone getting emotional?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is someone getting emotional?

The above is emtoive by you, as it leads off an emotion

So try with the mirror Zack

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


The above is emtoive by you, as it leads off an emotion

So try with the mirror Zack

Lol! I was talking about Eddie.

But funny how your paranoia exposes your emotional frailty.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is someone getting emotional?

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is someone getting emotional?

Irritated is the word. Didge doesnt make me emotional Zack.
Never get the two confused with me.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! I was talking about Eddie.

But funny how your paranoia exposes your emotional frailty.

Which shows you also were being emotive as I said based off an emotion as you reacted

I never said anything about myself, so I guess the paranoia stems from yoursellf

Its funny how again it was emotions that made you react before thinking to what I had actually said

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which shows you also were being emotive as I said based off an emotion as you reacted

I never said anything about myself, so I guess the paranoia stems from yoursellf

Its funny how again it was emotions that made you react before thinking to what I had actually said

Lol! I'm a human. Of course I feel emotions.  I'm not afraid to admit that.

You however have an emotional guard probably due to some abuse you suffered as a child.

eddie wrote:I think I replied to Zack?

I reacted  to the postman today when he dropped my letters in the rain.

Didge you're a four week cyclic poster; it builds up over a month and then you go BOOM.
Then you either leave, get chucked in the basement or say sorry.

Watch yourself today. You're on self-destruct mode.

eddie wrote:Ok whatever Didge. You win.
Get yourself some manpax.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:I think I replied to Zack?

I reacted  to the postman today when he dropped my letters in the rain.

Didge you're a four week cyclic poster; it builds up over a month and then you go BOOM.
Then you either leave, get chucked in the basement or say sorry.

Watch yourself today. You're on self-destruct mode.

Well Eddie, as you and Zack are being irrational, abusive and negative, then it seems you simply are unable to see how you are acting. Which is clearly no surprise. I simply responded with intelligence to a very poor point you made. You got upset and have since been rude and emotional

Its there for all to read and see

i suggest you relax and calm down

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well Eddie, as you and Zack are being irrational, abusive and negative, then it seems you simply are unable to see how you are acting. Which is clearly no surprise. I simply responded with intelligence to a very poor point you made. You got upset and have since been rude and emotional

Its there for all to read and see

i suggest you relax and calm down

Lol! So now I'm abusing you?

I did say you have an abuse complex probably due to some trauma in your childhood.

eddie wrote:Anyway. Back to the OP.

Did I hear right that this guy might be losing his church? And rightly so.

Raggamuffin wrote:So Ben, you're not judging Christians by what a few of them said, and you're not advocating any kind of restraint on what they say. What then was the point of this thread?

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Anyway. Back to the OP.

Did I hear right that this guy might be losing his church? And rightly so.

You do not get to decide where the direction of the debate has gone

I am having a decent dicussion with Ben and others, which sadly you tried to spoil

Please do not spoil that just because you have some childish issue with me

My points still stand and is relavnt to the OP as to what is wrong with religion with literal belief

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So Ben, you're not judging Christians by what a few of them said, and you're not advocating any kind of restraint on what they say. What then was the point of this thread?

To shine a light on this kind of hate speech, to do my little part to incite a groundswell of disapproval. As I told Vic, that's how you deal with hate speech when you don't have an oppressive, resentment-creating law to deal with it.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So Ben, you're not judging Christians by what a few of them said, and you're not advocating any kind of restraint on what they say. What then was the point of this thread?

To shine a light on this kind of hate speech, to do my little part to incite a groundswell of disapproval. As I told Vic, that's how you deal with hate speech when you don't have an oppressive, resentment-creating law to deal with it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So Ben, you're not judging Christians by what a few of them said, and you're not advocating any kind of restraint on what they say. What then was the point of this thread?

To shine a light on this kind of hate speech, to do my little part to incite a groundswell of disapproval. As I told Vic, that's how you deal with hate speech when you don't have an oppressive, resentment-creating law to deal with it.

I'll look forward to you doing the same when a Muslim says something which is out of order.

I daresay it will be a long wait.

Ben Reilly wrote:What we do have is the Nation of Islam, that bizarre offshoot of Islam in which white people were created by an evil scientist, black people are the "original man" and Jews are doing all sorts of nefarious things behind the scenes.

I've been pretty outspoken against them in the past, but they've been less active lately.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:What we do have is the Nation of Islam, that bizarre offshoot of Islam in which white people were created by an evil scientist, black people are the "original man" and Jews are doing all sorts of nefarious things behind the scenes.

I've been pretty outspoken against them in the past, but they've been less active lately.

Wonderful as that is a start, so you have no problem with the insensitivities of some Black American Muslims.
Muhammad Ali was one such follower who later in life changed from his once very antisemitic beliefs.
The point you seem to forget is that I advance those who propose a very forward islam. Not one born from countless unreliable acts and deeds of Muhammad's life or interpret the most prejudice views from the Quran. I back those looking to progress islam, as we see has happened in the main with Christianity. You though continually shy away thinking you will be wrongly labelled a bigot by speaking out on the many wrongs believed within the many variations of Islam. You do nothing for those oppressed under such islam, as such inactivity, as has seen. Allowed a core set within islam to believe they can continue to do so. That they abuse equality and the rights of people by playing off a victimhood, they have never suffered. Unlike actual real Muslim victims have from hate. You forget such islamism, makes no distinction also in promoting hate agaisnt other Muslims. Everytime you seek to defend the insensitivities of a belief, you further relegate those who suffer as secondary to that insensitivity.

And why?

You never shy away from being heavily critical from a conservative belief, or a racist belief and you have every right to do so, but place a belief with a mythical deity attached and you completely malfunction. As to doing what is right by standing up for the oppressed is then in conflict to you.

Think about that everytime, you think speaking out on bad beliefs in islam is wrong, as it may offend some Muslims. As you do nothing to help change the wrongs that have continued in that religion for 1400 years. You do nothing to actually back the progressive Muslims, who i back. Out to bring Islam into the 21st century.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll look forward to you doing the same when a Muslim says something which is out of order.

I daresay it will be a long wait.

We don't have a lot of Muslim hate-clerics in the U.S. As to the ones in the UK, someone usually beats me to the punch. I swear, some of y'all have a google alert with keywords like "Muslim Islam hate speech cleric UK muzzzzzzzzzz"

eddie wrote:Sorry rags I'm not understanding your problem here. Are you saying that becasue the Orlando shooting itself, was worse, that Ben needn't have bothered making a thread about someone only saying the victims of the shooting deserved to die?

Why does it have to be a religion-war? It's a story about a compete fuckwit who said something twisted and ignorant.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

To shine a light on this kind of hate speech, to do my little part to incite a groundswell of disapproval. As I told Vic, that's how you deal with hate speech when you don't have an oppressive, resentment-creating law to deal with it.

I'll look forward to you doing the same when a Muslim says something which is out of order.

I daresay it will be a long wait.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Sorry rags I'm not understanding your problem here. Are you saying that becasue the Orlando shooting itself, was worse, that Ben needn't have bothered making a thread about someone only saying the victims of the shooting deserved to die?

Why does it have to be a religion-war? It's a story about a compete fuckwit who said something twisted and ignorant.

Do you think Ben would have bothered to post it if it had been an atheist who said it? He posted it because it was a Christian.

eddie wrote:I disagree. And clearly you haven't seen a song he posted in a thread earlier.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9431p750-a-wonderful-daily-devotional-to-set-up-christians-for-the-day-god-bless-you#319274

He doesn't have anything against Christians as far as I can see.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll look forward to you doing the same when a Muslim says something which is out of order.

I daresay it will be a long wait.

Lol

They are many many Muslim bashing threads on here! So I don't see your point TBH

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I disagree. And clearly you haven't seen a song he posted in a thread earlier.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9431p750-a-wonderful-daily-devotional-to-set-up-christians-for-the-day-god-bless-you#319274

He doesn't have anything against Christians as far as I can see.

Ha! Yeah, right.

4EVER2 wrote:This is 'SUPPOSED' to be an open forum for current events that 'we the members' find of interest and want to bring in here for group discussion
As subjective as that is per member ...it's just as easy to ignore those specific genre titles or just resist the compulsion to allow it to annony you   
But we all know you lack that mental control or you'd be able to ignore my so irritating method of posting ...yet you're driven to stalk my posts like a shadow 

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I disagree. And clearly you haven't seen a song he posted in a thread earlier.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t9431p750-a-wonderful-daily-devotional-to-set-up-christians-for-the-day-god-bless-you#319274

He doesn't have anything against Christians as far as I can see.

Ha! Yeah, right.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wonderful as that is a start, so you have no problem with the insensitivities of some Black American Muslims.
Muhammad Ali was one such follower who later in life changed from his once very antisemitic beliefs.
The point you seem to forget is that I advance those who propose a very forward islam. Not one born from countless unreliable acts and deeds of Muhammad's life or interpret the most prejudice views from the Quran. I back those looking to progress islam, as we see has happened in the main with Christianity. You though continually shy away thinking you will be wrongly labelled a bigot by speaking out on the many wrongs believed within the many variations of Islam. You do nothing for those oppressed under such islam, as such inactivity, as has seen. Allowed a core set within islam to believe they can continue to do so. That they abuse equality and the rights of people by playing off a victimhood, they have never suffered. Unlike actual real Muslim victims have from hate. You forget such islamism, makes no distinction also in promoting hate agaisnt other Muslims. Everytime you seek to defend the insensitivities of a belief, you further relegate those who suffer as secondary to that insensitivity.

And why?

You never shy away from being heavily critical from a conservative belief, or a racist belief and you have every right to do so, but place a belief with a mythical deity attached and you completely malfunction. As to doing what is right by standing up for the oppressed is then in conflict to you.

Think about that everytime, you think speaking out on bad beliefs in islam is wrong, as it may offend some Muslims. As you do nothing to help change the wrongs that have continued in that religion for 1400 years. You do nothing to actually back the progressive Muslims, who i back. Out to bring Islam into the 21st century.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t16408-fallujah-isis-fires-at-civilians-fleeing-battle

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13252-for-losing-ramadi-isis-burns-its-own-fighters-alive

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t13035-ramadi-residents-say-isis-plans-to-use-them-as-human-shields

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t12397-isis-desperate-to-sow-anti-islamic-sentiments-start-a-war

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8080-isis-destroys-precious-pieces-in-northern-iraq-museum-updated

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7656-jordan-goes-tit-for-tat-with-isis-after-execution

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6438-isis-claims-to-have-beheaded-captured-u-s-journalist

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t6170-defector-speaks-out-the-brutality-of-isis-terrifies-everyone

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t91-al-qaeda-wants-to-play-havoc-with-u-s-vehicular-traffic

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ha! Yeah, right.

Right. I don't have anything against decent people, regardless of their beliefs. I will disagree with them, but I won't bash anybody who doesn't deserve it.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ha! Yeah, right.

Well I guess there's no changing your mind then.