Religion, Christmas And The U.s.a.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+6 January 2004 - 14:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 6 January 2004 - 14:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4@
Mr. Roberts is neither a racist nor a revisionist, he merely chooses to focus on what he sees as the positive aspects of religion and the U.S., without taking the time and space you and your like demand for the requisite apology and mea culpa that you deem necessary whenever someone gives thanks for what they have

I demand no apology. I am white and feel no responsibility for what my ancestors may or may not have done.

I merely like to see peoples theories match the facts.

If the dominance of Christianity in America "made the individual a citizen equal in rights to all other citizens", then how do you explain American history? How do you explain the fact that as the influence of Christianity in the US has decreased, the level of equal rights has increased?

You cant. So you avoid the issue.

btw allow me to translate for you...

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Mr. Roberts is neither a racist nor a revisionist, he is an advocate for the dominance of Christianity in the US over all other religions. He merely ignores the negative aspects of religion and the U.S., because he will never be able to square his arguments with the facts. If anyone does bring up any of these facts they are to be labelled as "guilt-mongerers" in order to avert attention away from the dissonance between his theories and the facts.

If you are going to offer these illogical "theories" in public then you should be prepared to defend them without sulking. [/b][/quote]
I do not sulk.

Ask anyone here.

What, exactly, was your graphic image in aid of?

At a time when religion is making a bit of a comeback in a solidly secular society, you would ignore the larger effect of Christianity on the continuing gestation of the U.S.

I would say to you, "fear not, your secularism is safe."

What do you feel you have to fear from religion, generally?

Or is it just Christian religion?

I would be the first to admit the practice of religion has been sloppy on many occasions, but never with the sanction of the state, such as was the case in Merry Olde England, or other environs historically.

Men have brutalized others in the name of religion; they have, for example, in the case of the Ku Klux Klan, even tried to claim vindication for this brutality in the name of religion.

However, such is not the case today, as you state, but not because of equal-rights legislation.

The speed with which you posted the image you chose made me think you keep it at the front of your documents file, for the purpose of taking the issue immediately to the extreme edge, rhetorically.

Your post had the effect of exposing you as a poster of inflammatory content and intent.

One would be hard put to say the same of Mr. Roberts&#39; column.


Are you anti-religion generally, or just with regard to Christianity?

BTW-what exactly have I avoided?

Your accusation is analogous to attempting to introduce a reminder to cover the subject of cancer while extolling the virtues of eating a nice juicy steak.

If you choose to answer, use care: I may label you as intolerant, in the name of extremist rhetoric-that is, unless you would like to bring the conversation back down to earth, where it belongs.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What, exactly, was your graphic image in aid of?[/b]

To show you that your/Mr Roberts hypothesis, that christianity in the US created "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.", is clearly wrong.

If this hypothesis was correct I wouldnt be able to produce such evidence.

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>At a time when religion is making a bit of a comeback in a solidly secular society, you would ignore the larger effect of Christianity on the continuing gestation of the U.S.[/b]

Christianity has had an effect on the US but it isnt what you claim it to be. As the popularity of Christianity diminished the level of equality in the US increased. I am not saying one caused the other but it does totally refute your hypothesis. Otherwise we would have seen a positive correlation between the two, not an inverse correlation. To support your theory you need to explain this anomaly.

Originally posted by j2k4
I would say to you, "fear not, your secularism is safe."

And I would give you a rather bemused look in return&#33;

Originally posted by j2k4
What do you feel you have to fear from religion, generally?

Nothing.

Originally posted by j2k4
Or is it just Christian religion?

See above.

Originally posted by j2k4
I would be the first to admit the practice of religion has been sloppy on many occasions, but never with the sanction of the state, such as was the case in Merry Olde England, or other environs historically.

Men have brutalized others in the name of religion; they have, for example, in the case of the Ku Klux Klan, even tried to claim vindication for this brutality in the name of religion.

Agreed.

Originally posted by j2k4
However, such is not the case today, as you state, but not because of equal-rights legislation.

I never stated that equal rights legislation caused that. You stated that Christianity caused it, yet you havent explained the mechanism of how this came about and you cant explain the serious &#39;anomaly&#39; I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by j2k4
The speed with which you posted the image you chose made me think you keep it at the front of your documents file, for the purpose of taking the issue immediately to the extreme edge, rhetorically.

If I were to describe that type of thing in words the inevitable "that didnt really happen, it wasnt that bad" argument would have to be addressed. So all in all I probably saved 10-20 minutes of off the point discussion.

Originally posted by j2k4
Your post had the effect of exposing you as a poster of inflammatory content and intent.

Are you aware that you havent mentioned anything to support your theory at all? You&#39;ve said that Christianity has been practised "sloppily" and then stated that equal rights legislation isnt responsible for "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants etc etc".

Then you&#39;ve picked up where you left off and went straight back to the topic of moi. While I understand that I may be an infinitely interesting individual, I didnt realise I was so interesting that people would happily go OT from a topic they themselves introduced.

Originally posted by j2k4
One would be hard put to say the same of Mr. Roberts&#39; column.

No, his column is simply illogical and makes great bounds from dubious non-factual premises to even more dubious conclusions.

For example..

Premise A

Formerly only those with power had a voice. But in Western civilization, people with integrity have a voice. So do people with a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play. Reformers can reform, investors can invest, and entrepreneurs can create commercial enterprises, new products and new occupations.

This has been clearly shown to be rubbish, lynching black people, jews, Irish etc is not how I would define "a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play" or "integrity".

Conclusion A

Originally posted by j2k4
The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

He&#39;s describing a fantasy. None of this is based on reality.

Originally posted by j2k4
Are you anti-religion generally, or just with regard to Christianity?

I&#39;m "anti-this article". Your friend Mr Roberts doesnt seem to have much time for other religions though..

There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country

1 religion per continent seems a bit miserly to me.

Originally posted by j2k4
BTW-what exactly have I avoided?

Precisely the same thing you&#39;ve avoided in this post.

"How do you explain the fact that as the influence of Christianity in the US has decreased, the level of equal rights has increased?"

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
Your accusation is analogous to attempting to introduce a reminder to cover the subject of cancer while extolling the virtues of eating a nice juicy steak.[/quote]

If you didnt understand what I was accusing you of avoiding then I fail to see how you can judge said accusation.

This post has been pure window dressing on your behalf. I suspect you care more for the "heat of battle" than about any topic mentioned in this thread. You certainly spend more time talking about your &#39;opponents&#39; than the topic.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
If you choose to answer, use care: I may label you as intolerant, in the name of extremist rhetoric-that is, unless you would like to bring the conversation back down to earth, where it belongs.[/quote]

After this latest offering from you I suggest you steer well clear of talking about bringing conversations back down to Earth. Your on thin ice my friend, very thin ice indeed.



If you do choose to answer my queries about the factual and logical inconsistencies in this hypothesis try and bear these 3 words in mind as you type.

Efficiency, honesty, integrity.

Your previous 2 posts have been severely lacking in all 3 areas.

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4)
What, exactly, was your graphic image in aid of?



To show you that your/Mr Roberts hypothesis, that christianity in the US created "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.", is clearly wrong.

Clearly wrong? Because you say so? I think, in order that you may practice the integrity you demand of others, you should backstop your pronouncement with reason.

If this hypothesis was correct I wouldnt be able to produce such evidence.

What you "produced" doesn&#39;t rise to the level of evidence.


QUOTE (j2k4)
At a time when religion is making a bit of a comeback in a solidly secular society, you would ignore the larger effect of Christianity on the continuing gestation of the U.S.



Christianity has had an effect on the US but it isnt what you claim it to be.

Pray tell then: What effect? Oh, right...lynchings.

As the popularity of Christianity diminished the level of equality in the US increased.

Exactly when and how? By what mechanisms?

I am not saying one caused the other but it does totally refute your hypothesis.

You haven&#39;t yet said anything other than to pronounce me wrong. Where is this refutation you speak of?

Otherwise we would have seen a positive correlation between the two, not an inverse correlation. To support your theory you need to explain this anomaly.


To the extent I need to explain anything, your place is not to determine that. There is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two, but not one which could be described strictly as correlative.

The "theory" you speak of (less religious influence/effect=equality of rights) is yours alone, and you may explain it to yourself if you like.


QUOTE (j2k4)
I would say to you, "fear not, your secularism is safe."



And I would give you a rather bemused look in return&#33;

Why? Is this funnier than I think?


QUOTE (j2k4)
What do you feel you have to fear from religion, generally?

Nothing.

This is obviously facetious.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Or is it just Christian religion?

See above.

See Above.


QUOTE (j2k4)
I would be the first to admit the practice of religion has been sloppy on many occasions, but never with the sanction of the state, such as was the case in Merry Olde England, or other environs historically.

Men have brutalized others in the name of religion; they have, for example, in the case of the Ku Klux Klan, even tried to claim vindication for this brutality in the name of religion.

Agreed.

Why, thank you.


QUOTE (j2k4)
However, such is not the case today, as you state, but not because of equal-rights legislation.



I never stated that equal rights legislation caused that.

That is true, you did not. You, like so many others, apparently believe the very idea of rights and equality rise out of some philosophically yeasty ether, magically appearing in the minds of certain enlightened people such as yourself, unbidden and uninformed by religious or other precursives.

You stated that Christianity caused it, yet you havent explained the mechanism of how this came about and you cant explain the serious &#39;anomaly&#39; I mentioned earlier.

I stated no such thing, but, if pressed, will say that the nascent ideas about religious rights (NOT religion, proper) in the minds of the founders paved the way for your equality, not the decline, perceived or otherwise, of religion.

Any anomalies are in your head, leftism.


QUOTE (j2k4)
The speed with which you posted the image you chose made me think you keep it at the front of your documents file, for the purpose of taking the issue immediately to the extreme edge, rhetorically.



If I were to describe that type of thing in words the inevitable "that didnt really happen, it wasnt that bad" argument would have to be addressed. So all in all I probably saved 10-20 minutes of off the point discussion.


Bullshit.

You still haven&#39;t explained the relevance of your "picture". It wouldn&#39;t have occurred to me to counter it with any sort of &#39;"that didnt really happen, it wasnt that bad" argument&#39; , and your attempt to provoke by your inclusion of it is shameful.

You made no point by reproducing it here, and to demand I countenance it is nonsense.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Your post had the effect of exposing you as a poster of inflammatory content and intent.



Are you aware that you havent mentioned anything to support your theory at all? You&#39;ve said that Christianity has been practised "sloppily" and then stated that equal rights legislation isnt responsible for "a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants etc etc".

This makes no sense and has no discernable context.

Then you&#39;ve picked up where you left off and went straight back to the topic of moi. While I understand that I may be an infinitely interesting individual, I didnt realise I was so interesting that people would happily go OT from a topic they themselves introduced.

You are mistaken in this regard. Your photo constituted the initial OT breech.


QUOTE (j2k4)
One would be hard put to say the same of Mr. Roberts&#39; column.



No, his column is simply illogical and makes great bounds from dubious non-factual premises to even more dubious conclusions.

Your entire post certifies you as an expert on the subject of illogic, great bounds, and dubious conclusions.

For example..

Premise A


QUOTE
Formerly only those with power had a voice. But in Western civilization, people with integrity have a voice. So do people with a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play. Reformers can reform, investors can invest, and entrepreneurs can create commercial enterprises, new products and new occupations.

All true. How does this inform your picture? Or vice-versa?

This has been clearly shown to be rubbish, lynching black people, jews, Irish etc is not how I would define "a sense of justice, of honor, of duty, of fair play" or "integrity".

You inserted the picture, apropos of nothing, yet you expect me to make sense of your having done so?

Who said anything about lynching Jews or the Irish? Or etc. (Whomever that might be)?

Conclusion A


QUOTE (j2k4)
The result was a land of opportunity. The United States attracted immigrants who shared our values and reflected them in their own lives. Our culture was absorbed by a diverse people who became one.

Undeniably true.

He&#39;s describing a fantasy. None of this is based on reality.

Really? Prove it-no pictures allowed, this time.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Are you anti-religion generally, or just with regard to Christianity?



I&#39;m "anti-this article". Your friend Mr Roberts doesnt seem to have much time for other religions though..

Because he is speaking in chronological context, as Islam and Buddhism, etc. were not present here at the time the founders were doing their thing.

This is basic, leftism: What they had to consider was the spectrum of Christianity; they are not liable for your mis-perceptions as re: circumstance.


QUOTE There is plenty of room for cultural diversity in the world, but not within a single country

Lack of a common culture is a divisive force, and is constantly exploited to foment class envy by politicians and others.

People are free to practice their individual cultures-there needs to also be a concomitant national identity to provide for the meshing and comingling of these cultures.

Another basic fact you ignore, leftism.



1 religion per continent seems a bit miserly to me.

Who said that? Not me. Not Mr. Roberts.

Don&#39;t try to twist meanings, leftism-I won&#39;t let you.



QUOTE (j2k4)
BTW-what exactly have I avoided?

Precisely the same thing you&#39;ve avoided in this post.

"How do you explain the fact that as the influence of Christianity in the US has decreased, the level of equal rights has increased?"

This is your concoction, not mine; YOU explain it.


QUOTE (j2k4)
Your accusation is analogous to attempting to introduce a reminder to cover the subject of cancer while extolling the virtues of eating a nice juicy steak.

If you didnt understand what I was accusing you of avoiding then I fail to see how you can judge said accusation.

I have enlisted the aid of others in attempting to assess this accusation.

Nobody can make head nor tail of it.

This post has been pure window dressing on your behalf. I suspect you care more for the "heat of battle" than about any topic mentioned in this thread. You certainly spend more time talking about your &#39;opponents&#39; than the topic.

Another mis-apprehension; I know nothing about dressing windows-though I will admit to an affinity for the "heat of battle" as you call it.

I will speak of YOU no more, leftism.


QUOTE (j2k4)
If you choose to answer, use care: I may label you as intolerant, in the name of extremist rhetoric-that is, unless you would like to bring the conversation back down to earth, where it belongs.



After this latest offering from you I suggest you steer well clear of talking about bringing conversations back down to Earth. Your on thin ice my friend, very thin ice indeed.

Spoken like a true alien.

I must insist, in any case, that you not refer to me as "friend".



If you do choose to answer my queries about the factual and logical inconsistencies in this hypothesis try and bear these 3 words in mind as you type.

Efficiency, honesty, integrity.

Your previous 2 posts have been severely lacking in all 3 areas.

What you said.

Thin ice, huh?

Indeed.

[leftism]

yuck, how tedious.

Instead of going through each and every one of your bizarre, inane, childish comments lets move onto the only piece of your post that was worth typing. (I never indulge attention seekers, and you sir are a &#39;fine&#39; example)

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two[/b]

Explain this "cause-and-effect relationship".

If you are unwilling to explain your crackpot theories (MY religion is the root of all morality&#33;&#33; No no MY religion is&#33;&#33 then I suggest that you not post them on public forums. People may have this shocking tendency to ask questions and disagree with you.



PS

Originally posted by j2k4@
Who said anything about lynching Jews or the Irish? Or etc. (Whomever that might be)?

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
You forgot all the pictures of similar lynchings of Italians, Jews and Irishmen.[/quote]

See what I mean? You&#39;re so wrapped up in this "battle" you cant even remember what you&#39;ve said let alone answer a simple question&#33;

You have shown your &#39;quality&#39; sir. Pathetic.

[ilw]

The equality for all, was imo more a product of the variety of people who were represented in the production rather than their religious background.

People seek the origins of moral lessons continuously, ilw, and always have. If Christianity is not responsible for the message, then what?

I was just saying you made it sound like christianity (ie jesus) was the originator of the message whereas i find it easier to believe that the message is older and is simply spread by christianity. The book i was reading claimed Aristotle was responsible for a very large part of the morals in Christianity and the examples given were convincing. It also means that i now partially blame aristotle for retarding science for centuries, as it was (apparently) his espousing of deductive rather than inductive logic that led to galileo and various other scientists being persecuted.

I agree christianity was a useful carrier for a mostly sound philosophy, but the original article seems to claim (without a shred of proof or reasoning) so much more.

[clocker]

j2,

As you are a long time poster and board friend, I know you had the best of intentions in your post.
Biggles, as usual, did a beautiful job of discerning your original intent I think, and who can quibble with his conclusions?
Unfortunately, I believe that you chose a real Hindenburg of a vehicle to carry your sentiment.
Your debate with Leftism (BillyDean?), while entertaining and very reminiscent of the early days of this section, are ultimately going nowhere.
You are defending the spirit of Mr Roberts&#39;s mini-essay and Leftism ( and I, admittedly) are picking at the details.
Touche?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@7 January 2004 - 10:30
j2,

As you are a long time poster and board friend, I know you had the best of intentions in your post.
Biggles, as usual, did a beautiful job of discerning your original intent I think, and who can quibble with his conclusions?
Unfortunately, I believe that you chose a real Hindenburg of a vehicle to carry your sentiment.
Your debate with Leftism (BillyDean?), while entertaining and very reminiscent of the early days of this section, are ultimately going nowhere.
You are defending the spirit of Mr Roberts&#39;s mini-essay and Leftism ( and I, admittedly) are picking at the details.
Touche?

As usual sir, you render the board a great service.

As you say: Touche&#33;

ilw-

You have also managed to hit the nail on or about it&#39;s head.

The great minds of any age have a tendency to leave in their wake a certain sludge which entraps those who would (and should) progress.

I think this unfortunate, as, while tremendous strides are made in certain areas of philosophical endeavor, others cannot see the boundries implied by certain schools of thought.

A particularly clumsy and inappropriate example of this occurs to me:

Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay was, in his prime, arguably the best heavyweight boxer who ever lived.

His singular style, of movement, grace and speed, had never been seen in the heavyweight division.

In my opinion, he ruined a whole generation of heavyweights who followed, believing their path to greatness was signified by the extent to which they could emulate him.

None have succeeded, because none have been blessed with the physical gifts he had.

So it is with thinkers, also.


BTW-Having reread this post, I would posit the notion I seem to have climbed onto a particularly high horse since the New Year.

I am afraid of heights-

Could somebody help me down before I become absolutely insufferable?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 January 2004 - 09:38



BTW-Having reread this post, I would posit the notion I seem to have climbed onto a particularly high horse since the New Year.

I am afraid of heights-

Could somebody help me down before I become absolutely insufferable?

Help is on it&#39;s way.

What did you mean by "becoming" insufferable?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+7 January 2004 - 12:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 7 January 2004 - 12:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 January 2004 - 09:38



BTW-Having reread this post, I would posit the notion I seem to have climbed onto a particularly high horse since the New Year.

I am afraid of heights-

Could somebody help me down before I become absolutely insufferable?

Help is on it&#39;s way.

What did you mean by "becoming" insufferable?[/b][/quote]
Ooooooh....I can&#39;t wait.

She bears a striking resemblance to Jeanette Lee (the Black Widow); even more so if you substitute a pool cue for the gun.

As to your last, pardon me, I should have said &#39;...even more completely and irretrievably absolutely insufferable than usual."

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 January 2004 - 09:58
I should have said &#39;...even more completely and irretrievably absolutely insufferable than usual."

Just so.

Precision in thought and deed is a goal worthy of your continued efforts.