- Blasphemy is Protected Speech: One of the ideas that we need to emphasize is the idea that criticism of religion, even what may be considered blasphemy, is protected speech in a free country. Those who seek to limit our ability to criticize government, religious, or any other type of institution, are the friends of totalitarianism. "The Muslim uproar has a goal — to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby to impose Shariah norms on the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order."
- "Youths" Set Paris Afire: Predominantly Muslim youths continue to bring Islamic peace (violence) to France.
- Humor – the EU decides that English, with some modifications, will be the official language of the EU, not German.
- France to Become Muslim Country: The author argues that France has already made too many concessions to Islam, and will become a predominantly Muslim country, and become the "enemy within" in the EU. Unless public officials and intellectuals start taking stronger stands and are willing to piss off the unruly "youths" in their country.
29 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Which means that you will vociferously defend my right to defame Christianity to the ends of the Earth, right Seeker?
Abso f*cking lutely ;)
Seeker! Shame on you for such butchering of the lovely english language ;)
But, Sam, isnt it obvious. He hasnt blocked you or Louis from posting, even though I would say you show open hostility toward his views all the time! :)
I only share open hostility toward his views because they're both wrong and terribly unAmerican. If he would change his views toward more libertarian, tolerant ones that recognized both his (and other's) freedoms to act as individuals, then the hostility would absolutely stop. I don't want anybody here to change – I just want them to grit their teeth and accept that the love shared by gay couples is worthy of legal protections given to straights. And that God didn't create the earth 6500 years ago.
Cineaste's two cents…
Atheists discriminated against by Christians
75% of America is Christian
75% of the prison population is Christian
10% of America is Atheist
.2% of the prison population is Atheist
Also, Atheists don't get divorced as often as Protestants and Catholics.
Have a nice weekend!
Nice stats, but unconvincing.
First, what you mean by "christian" above is probably just cultural christianity, not the real thing. Second, many people become true christians while IN prison. Third, is your number of atheists the ones who are atheist BEFORE prison, or after? I'd suspect that the rigors or prison may convert many of them FROM their atheism, making the numbers go down.
I don't doubt that most atheists get a bad rap from our Christian culture. Most atheists are intelligent people who rely so heavily on logic, that is, to a fault, that any kind of genuine faith is impossible for them. Atheists are really the problem in society, though militant anti-religious rhetoric from many notable atheists is bothersome. But atheists and secular humanists form a nice balance against religious zealots.
As I have oft said, a true biblical view of man acknowledged BOTH man's beauty (divinity, if you wil) and falleness, while humanists and religionists only choose one or the other extreme.
And regarding God and government, I think that both sides also choose extremes.
First, what you mean by "christian" above is probably just cultural christianity, not the real thing.
I do mean anyone who worships Jesus. When you say "Real thing" do you mean to say you are better than these people?
I'd suspect that the rigors or prison may convert many of them FROM their atheism, making the numbers go down.
It's because Atheists are too smart to get caught.
When you say "Real thing" do you mean to say you are better than these people?
Nope, only to acknowledge that many people who call themselves "Christian" merely wear the label, while in their thoughts, convictions, beliefs, and practices, are not Christian at all. It's like I used to call myself a Catholic, but I hardly believed or practiced anything central to Catholicism.
It's like saying "the US is a Christian nation." By what measure? In fact, how to do you measure "Christian"?
If you say "those who worship Jesus", what does THAT mean? Does it mean they attend church regularly? I'd dare to say that's way less than 75%. How about those who obey his commandments? What about those who obey his great commandment, or great "commission" to preach the gospel? Now what is our percentage?
hmmm. I think you actually mean hard core evangelicals when you say "real Christians." 75% of prison inmates are normal Christians according to the prison bureau. Atheists are scientists. Scientists are usually to educated for prison. Except the uni-bomber hehe.
No, I don't mean evangelicals. But I do mean that actual Christians is a narrower group than the 75%. It's like saying "we consider America a Christian nation, therefore, all Americans are Christians."
Just because people self-identify as Christians does not mean that they fit even the broadest definition of the word, because many just have a cultural identification that has little to do with the actual content or beliefs of xianity.
I don't know about that bro. We're all Americans despite our differences. The same applies to Christians.
I just don't want to you to feel free to slam Christianity because many people claim the label but have little or no knowledge of or allegiance to Christ at all. Worship is as worship does.
Even biblically speaking, both Jesus and Paul warned that those who say they are believers but don't live like it prove that they really don't believe. Religious sentiment or group identification do not a christian make, except in the most anti-intellectual inclusionary sense.
I mean, if some idiot claims to be an secular atheist and kills millions (think Marx, Stalin), does that make him a true atheist. Oh, maybe that was a bad example ;)
And if we want to follow your logic, since both you and Sam are Americans, can I call you Christians?
I mean, if some idiot claims to be an secular atheist and kills millions (think Marx, Stalin), does that make him a true atheist.
Awful argument. Awful. Sure, he could be a true Atheist. The thing is, all he has to do to be an Atheist is not be a Theist :P He can be a true Atheist and kill millions. Someone can be a true Theist (belief in a deity) and also kill millions. You have no ground to stand on pursuing the point above.
And if we want to follow your logic, since both you and Sam are Americans, can I call you Christians?
For me, sure. Technically, I am a Christian. I've been baptized and, according to Catholicism, if I don't commit a mortal sin, I'm guaranteed to go to heaven. I don't identify myself as a Christian though if that makes a difference to you.
Let me try to help you with your point by arguing against myself :) Richard Dawkins is very upset that children are considered to be Christians or Muslims from the day they are born. These children are too young to talk, let alone decide if they believe in Jesus, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People calling their children Christian or Muslim from the day they are born is as stupid as labeling their children as Marxists from birth. Indoctrination of this sort is abusive. So, perhaps one could call these "Christian" and "Muslim" children as CINO or MINO (Christian/Muslim in name only) . Do you agree with Professor Dawkins? How can one be a true Christian when they are still crapping their pants? Then again, when God was crapping His diaper as baby Jesus, he was still God. :P Mary to Joseph, "Honey, it's your turn to change God's diaper!"
P.S. When do we get some new posts? I have a lot of interesting material already waiting.
Dude, maybe you need your own site! I promise not to post angry comments all over your new blog ;)
Off-topic, perhaps, but as I can't post here, I'll put it here.
Theocracy has come up here before, here's C.S.Lewis, a man I admire more and more, on it:
"Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations…
The nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic, held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right."
I wish more Christians followed the example set by C.S. Lewis.
Yes, but I would argue that what he is talking about has little to do with what we see in conservative Christian politics today. Does Lewis define what he means by "theocracy"?
I mean to publish a post on this, but the best estimate of what the founders meant by "no religious test for oath of office" is more accurately translated "no denominational test." The main reason I believe this is so is because many of those same founders wrote their respective State Constitutions and made Christian faith a prerequisite for office. They believed that having a Christian world view and character made one fit for governing, and not having it proved you were unfit.
They merely wanted to prevent the merging of the state and ecclesiastical power structures, and the official support of one flavor of Christianity over others. However, I think they were mostly in agreement that the God of the Bible was to be honored in personal and public life.
Tosh! This just proves, once again, that you are a theocrat, seeker. Need I quote, once again, the anti-Christian comments of key Founders? "Not having [a Christian world view] proved you were unfit" for office?! I assert that holding this belief is one definition of theocracy. It's quite clear that today's xian conservative are, at the very least, crypto-theocrats, and often openly theocratic. And I think Lewis' criticism applies.
Not having [a Christian world view] proved you were unfit" for office?! I assert that holding this belief is one definition of theocracy.
I am not saying this is my view, but I am saying that this was most likely the view of many founders, and they codified it in state laws across the colonies.
But they didn't codify it in the Constitution. Game. Match. Set.
No, I am telling you that what they put in the Constitution must be interpreted within the historical context, which includes the specific language of the state constitutions that these men also authored.
The "historical context" is the terrors caused by combining church and state (cf, the entire history of Europe). That's why they tried to keep the two separate. You modern-day christers want to repeat that reign of terror.
Your conclusion is not supported by the facts. It is much more logical that they were against denominational support by the government, and THAT is what they were fighting. I mean, every colony that came here came explicitly for the furtherance of the gospel. They started our first seminaries (Harvard, Yale, Princeton), and they made, in many states, Christianity as a test for office. Your conclusion ignores these facts, and is most likely self-serving rather than accurate.
The fact that they supported the Christian faith in general, in the public debates and laws, shows that the extreme liberal idea of separation is not that of the founders, but of anti-religionist and anti-Christian secularists whose desire to make the founders writings fit their world view.
So, then, you support christianism as a test for office?
Nope. But neither do I think a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and woman is out of the question.
non-sequitor.
However, should such a constitutional amendment actually become part of the Constitution it will be a calamity for this country, for it will show once and for all time that America considers its gay citizens second-class. Why don't you propose an amendment which makes us 2/3 of a citizen for voting purposes? Why not one forcing us into concentration camps? After all, we're abominations to your glorious Christian Republic and your invisible god.
But of course, theocrats like you are beyond reason. You argue for religious (ie, Christian) control of gov't, a system of belief which has nothing to do with reason. Every conflation of Christianity with gov't throughout history has been a calamity for individual freedom. But, then, you theocrats (ie, fascists) don't care about that at all because the individual and his freedom isn't your prime concern – in fact, it isn't your concern at all. The glory of your invisible god is your sole concern, and using that invisible god to maintain control.
Why don't you propose an amendment which makes us 2/3 of a citizen for voting purposes? Why not one forcing us into concentration camps? After all, we're abominations to your glorious Christian Republic and your invisible god.
Because your logic is a non-sequitur.
By your logic, disallowing polygamy, marriage between cousins, etc. is the first step in dehumanizing people and taking away their rights. It is not. Nor does it have anything to do with voting rights.
And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.