If you are going to offer these illogical "theories" in public then you should be prepared to defend them without sulking. [/b][/quote]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 @ 6 January 2004 - 14:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I demand no apology. I am white and feel no responsibility for what my ancestors may or may not have done.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 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.
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' 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.
Bookmarks