Shooting at Jewish communty center & Jewish skilled nursing facility in Kansas -- three people dead

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I wouldn't be surprised if he has recently been diagnosed with some sort of life-ending or -threatening illness … so now he finally has his chance to do what he's always wanted to do.
Interesting, from an acquaintance:
That is something Clevenger still struggles with in the man he calls a friend. He remembers Miller telling him a few years ago that he was sick and wouldn’t live very long, though he didn’t say what was ailing him.

Miller sometimes didn’t look well and took a lot of pain medicine, Clevenger said.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/14/4959504/in-southwest-missouri-authorities.html
 

Shaba

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
1,658
Reaction score
40
The problem is this murderer's view of Christianity. Christianity preaches love and tolerance. I won't get into the teaching of Jesus here, but as a Christian, I'm deeply sickened by those who have hijacked Christianity and are using it to preach hate and fear.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
After every terrorism attack, we're properly reminded that it's a fallacy to judge all Muslims based on the actions of a few individuals, and doing so is nothing but naked bigotry.

How about we extend the same consideration to the 100 million gun owners in America?

Planet Earth to Don:

This dude isn't considered a terrorist because he owned a gun. He's considered a terrorist because of what he did with that gun.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled anti-government diatribe.

caw
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
The problem is this murderer's view of Christianity. Christianity preaches love and tolerance. I won't get into the teaching of Jesus here, but as a Christian, I'm deeply sickened by those who have hijacked Christianity and are using it to preach hate and fear.


As regards Judaism, Christianity does not have a good track record as far as preaching love and tolerance is concerned (many links can be provided to substantiate this if required).

Indeed, only in the last fifty odd years has there been much improvement on that subject.
 

Shaba

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
1,658
Reaction score
40
As regards Judaism, Christianity does not have a good track record as far as preaching love and tolerance is concerned (many links can be provided to substantiate this if required).

Indeed, only in the last fifty odd years has there been much improvement on that subject.

No doubt about that and I'm embarrassed by the way Christians have treated others in the past going back to burning so called heretics at the stake. You would think they would know better after seeing how Christians were treated at the beginning of Christianity. A sad fact is that some of the worst atrocities of Christianity were perpetrated by greedy, power hungry individuals who hijacked Christianity without truly being Christian in both mind and spirit (I can provide several links on that). There is a huge different between being a Christian and doing things in the name of Christianity. The latter half is where the lines are blurred and it usually gives rise to intolerance and hatred, none of which Jesus preached. Just like we had people who hijacked Christianity in the past, we still have those type of individuals today. Where the past and the present Christians picked up notion to mistreat others is beyond me, but I recently started to understand why. I go to a very large church (900 people in our service alone) and our pastor asked everyone who hasn't read the entire bible to stand. Three-fourths of the church stood up and it wouldn't surprise me if others didn't stand up because of embarrassment. In the end, I say let God deal with those individuals who preach hate in his name, for there might be no greater sin than that.

An even sadder part is that for most of our history, we humans haven't been on a great track record when it comes to tolerance (I can provide several links on that if need be). We've been intolerant of people who are different than we are since the dawn of time (before established religion and after established religion) and continue to do so today. The rich blame the poor, the poor blame the rich, republicans hate democrats, democrats hate republicans, races points fingers at each other, countries point fingers at each other, false religious leaders stir up hate instead of preaching the actually message within their respected holy books. Honestly, we might be more technologically advanced and civilized (in some areas), but we are killing ourselves and treating ourselves the same as we did since the beginning.

For my third magic act...kidding.
 
Last edited:

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,211
Reaction score
15,811
Location
Australia.
Novelist Joseph Heller has written that one of the major effects of capitalism is communism.

Similarly, one of the effects of Christianity religion is atheism.

caw

Fixed it for ya ;)
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
No doubt about that and I'm embarrassed by the way Christians have treated others in the past going back to burning so called heretics at the stake. You would think they would know better after seeing how Christians were treated at the beginning of Christianity. A sad fact is that some of the worst atrocities of Christianity were perpetrated by greedy, power hungry individuals who hijacked Christianity without truly being Christian in both mind and spirit (I can provide several links on that). There is a huge different between being a Christian and doing things in the name of Christianity. The latter half is where the lines are blurred and it usually gives rise to intolerance and hatred, none of which Jesus preached. Just like we had people who hijacked Christianity in the past, we still have those type of individuals today. Where the past and the present Christians picked up notion to mistreat others is beyond me, but I recently started to understand why. I go to a very large church (900 people in our service alone) and our pastor asked everyone who hasn't read the entire bible to stand. Three-fourths of the church stood up and it wouldn't surprise me if others didn't stand up because of embarrassment. In the end, I say let God deal with those individuals who preach hate in his name, for there might be no greater sin than that.

An even sadder part is that for most of our history, we humans haven't been on a great track record when it comes to tolerance (I can provide several links on that if need be). We've been intolerant of people who are different than we are since the dawn of time (before established religion and after established religion) and continue to do so today. The rich blame the poor, the poor blame the rich, republicans hate democrats, democrats hate republicans, races points fingers at each other, countries point fingers at each other, false religious leaders stir up hate instead of preaching the actually message within their respected holy books. Honestly, we might be more technologically advanced and civilized (in some areas), but we are killing ourselves and treating ourselves the same as we did since the beginning.

For my third magic act...kidding.

While there is much to admire in the core ideas of Christianity, I fear it is not so easy to separate the good aspects from the ill. The human mind can hold and follow helpful and harmful ways simultaneously. To assert that the people doing these things were hijackers misses the complexity of humanity and history. It also verges on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Looking at the history of Christianity, one sees this admixture at all times and places. One of the most startling examples I found was in the visionary writings of Saint Hildegard of Bingen whose Christian vision of holiness contains a savage anti-Jewish vision.

The reality is that for around two thousand years, there were anti-Jewish teachings in nearly all branches of Christianity. There still are in many. Challenges to these teachings are recent. That's good; religions evolve. But it's not as if the past forms of Christianity were false, impure, hijacked forms. They were different forms of Christianity, with different admixtures of good and ill.

Ignoring that history creates bewilderment at the kind of atrocity in the OP. But to anyone who has looked at the history of Christian and Jewish relations, it's not a strange event at all. The strange and wonderful thing is how rare it is these days.

Christianity does not have a good history of tolerance. Various branches of Christianity seem to be developing more tolerance these days. That's a great thing. It does bring the religion more in line with some of its neglected ideals.

But, if people neglect the history of intolerance they may find themselves complacent with whatever level of tolerance happens to be around at the present time. They may also decide that any attempted increase of tolerance and respect for others beyond that level is an attempt to undermine Christianity. And they may take up words, and laws, and arms against that rising tolerance, in the name of their religion.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Novelist Joseph Heller has written that one of the major effects of capitalism is communism.

Similarly, one of the effects of Christianity is atheism.

caw

Atheism isn't an effect of Christianity or any other religion. Mistrust of atheists, and atheists being treated as fallen souls and corrupters of innocence, rather than people who simply see the world in a certain way, those are effects of religion.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
While there is much to admire in the core ideas of Christianity, I fear it is not so easy to separate the good aspects from the ill.

All of the Abrahamic religions are reactionary in some way.

Christianity contains reactionary teachings against the corruption of the temples of the time.

Even Judaism contains teachings that are reactionary to Babylonian and other ancient religions.

Even within Christianity, there is Protestantism that is a reaction to the corruption of the church of the time.

That being said, there are certainly major differences in how these reactionary elements have been carried into modern times, and how they affect us now.

Atheism isn't an effect of Christianity or any other religion. Mistrust of atheists, and atheists being treated as fallen souls and corrupters of innocence, rather than people who simply see the world in a certain way, those are effects of religion.

Atheism in its current form is a fairly modern thing. (As far as my understanding of world history goes.)

I think there is some legitimacy to the argument that atheism (as a phenomenon) is a reaction to the abuses of Christianity (and probably Islam and other dominant religions as well).

I don't think that necessarily denigrates the legitimacy and validity of atheism is a theological stance and worldview of individual thinkers.
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
All of the Abrahamic religions are reactionary in some way.

Christianity contains reactionary teachings against the corruption of the temples of the time.

Even Judaism contains teachings that are reactionary to Babylonian and other ancient religions.

Even within Christianity, there is Protestantism that is a reaction to the corruption of the church of the time.

That being said, there are certainly major differences in how these reactionary elements have been carried into modern times, and how they affect us now.



Atheism in its current form is a fairly modern thing. (As far as my understanding of world history goes.)

I think there is some legitimacy to the argument that atheism (as a phenomenon) is a reaction to the abuses of Christianity (and probably Islam and other dominant religions as well).

I don't think that necessarily denigrates the legitimacy and validity of atheism is a theological stance and worldview of individual thinkers.

You're right about the reactionary character of the origins of the Abrahamic religions. But that's an origin. Buddhism began as a reaction against Hinduism. Confucianism and Taoism arose as reactions against a particular period of Chinese history. They don't have to remain at the moment of their reaction. Religions change and grow and evolve over time.

Atheism as a term arises because of the presence of religious presumption. It answers the question "What's your religion?" with "None of the above."
The question presumes that everyone has a religion, and those of us who don't need a word to describe ourselves relative to religion. We only need that word because of the cultural attitude toward religion. So, in that sense, the concept arises from the religion.

But for most atheists, it's not disillusionment with the abuses of the religion. That assumes that atheists would be theists if religion was run properly. That's inaccurate.

See hidden in the question of religion is another one,"By what is your life guided?" And here is where atheism as a term masks a diversity of ways of thinking that simply aren't centered on or don't incorporate ideas of the divine. There are vast regions of philosophy and practicality that have little and common, but are seen as the same because they lie outside the tent of theistic systems.

Atheists as a group are defined by those outside of atheism. You know how accurate such outside definitions are.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
You're right about the reactionary character of the origins of the Abrahamic religions. But that's an origin. Buddhism began as a reaction against Hinduism. Confucianism and Taoism arose as reactions against a particular period of Chinese history. They don't have to remain at the moment of their reaction. Religions change and grow and evolve over time.

But for most atheists, it's not disillusionment with the abuses of the religion. That assumes that atheists would be theists if religion was run properly. That's inaccurate.

I don't deny either of those facts.

In fact they're both part of my point against conflating one's personal beliefs with the origin of a movement and/or cultural phenomenon as a whole.

And also against conflating the origin of one's beliefs with their ultimate validity.

Religion is strongly tied in with culture, and whether one actually believes in its spiritual and mythological teachings or not, it does influence us.

This is evident in the way many atheists talk about religion, which — at least in the US — is almost always conflated with Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.

Even when other religions are recognized, their belief systems are often defined by contrast to these more dominant religions.

In many societies, it's impossible to fully separate religion from culture.

This is also true in the Jewish community, where secularism is a pretty common thing. As an additional example, much of the population of many Asian countries like Japan and China would not immediately identify as "religious", but you wouldn't necessarily know this based on customs, into which many religious traditions have been absorbed into being considered purely cultural.

Whether we like it or not, a lack of belief in theological teachings does not fully free us from all of the other aspects of religion.

Religion and culture as separate things has become far more prevalent as after-effects of colonialism and imperialism, which in the Western world have been fueled by predominantly Christian empires.

In many ways, the widespread separation of culture and religion is a post-imperialist phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I don't deny either of those facts.

In fact they're both part of my point against conflating one's personal beliefs with the origin of a movement and/or cultural phenomenon as a whole.

And also against conflating the origin of one's beliefs with their ultimate validity.

Religion is strongly tied in with culture, and whether one actually believes in its spiritual and mythological teachings or not, it does influence us.

This is evident in the way many atheists talk about religion, which — at least in the US — is almost always conflated with Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.

Even when other religions are recognized, their belief systems are often defined by contrast to these more dominant religions.

In many societies, it's impossible to fully separate religion from culture.

This is also true in the Jewish community, where secularism is a pretty common thing. As an additional example, much of the population of many Asian countries like Japan and China would not immediately identify as "religious", but you wouldn't necessarily know this based on customs, into which many religious traditions have been absorbed into being considered purely cultural.

Whether we like it or not, a lack of belief in theological teachings does not fully free us from all of the other aspects of religion.

Religion and culture as separate things has become far more prevalent as after-effects of colonialism and imperialism, which in the Western world have been fueled by predominantly Christian empires.

In many ways, the widespread separation of culture and religion is a post-imperialist phenomenon.

That's a lot of good points and some interesting questions.

Let me deal with the atheism point first. Atheism within a religious culture will always be framed relative to the religion or religions of that culture. Some atheists have no interest in religion and therefore don't learn about religions outside of the ones they grew up surrounded by. Many of them therefore presume that all religions are like those. Note: this was one of the things about Christopher Hitchens that annoyed me a great deal.

Other atheists, myself included, are very interested in religion and try to study widely.

But to a large extent atheism isn't a viewpoint; it's a conversation. For a long time in the West when avowed atheism was literally a crime, atheism was the province of isolated individuals. For the last say 300 years, it's been a growing discussion, but that discussion is relative to the surrounding cultures and religions. So, yes, it is largely framed relative to Abrahamic and particularly Christian views.

The matter of the separation of religion and culture isn't post imperial. In the case of at least two large scale religions (Christianity and Buddhism), it is deliberate.

Christianity actively and on purpose separated itself from Judaism, and went off to preach. It fit itself into cultures in many bizarre fashions. The idea that a pacifistic communist religion like early Christianity could be the inspirer of knights and crusades and of the divine right of kings came about by fusing the religion into preexisting cultures.

Buddhism adapted itself to the cultures of each country it entered, often adapting local religious elements as can be seen in Tibet, China, and Japan.
 

Pup

.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
75
This is evident in the way many atheists talk about religion, which — at least in the US — is almost always conflated with Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.

Even when other religions are recognized, their belief systems are often defined by contrast to these more dominant religions.

I'd say that's because Christians and members of the other Abrahamic religions are the ones forcing the conversation. If no Hindu knocks on my door to try to convert me, or repeatedly invites me to worship with them or implies I must be immoral because I don't think like they do, I'll spend very little time discussing Hinduism. And the same for any other religion.

Unfortunately, there are Christians in Christian-dominated cultures who demand or expect that atheists justify themselves. Yes, one could ignore them, but I don't think a society where only Christians get to talk about such things is a good society.

Whether we like it or not, a lack of belief in theological teachings does not fully free us from all of the other aspects of religion.

Such as social pressure to justify one's beliefs in contrast to the majority.
 
Last edited:

melindamusil

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
743
Reaction score
65
I am watching an interfaith service in honor of Dr. William Corporan, Reat Underwood, and Terri Lamanno.

As I watch all these men of faith come together - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and many others - I feel that we should all emphasize that the actions of Glenn Miller DO NOT truly represent any of these religions.

On various occasions throughout history, people have corrupted each of these religions to excuse their hatred. But they were wrong. They are wrong. They will always be wrong.
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
His actions do not reflect the beliefs of atheists or agnostics either. Organized religion does not guarantee a practicing member be moral or even decent. --s6
 
Last edited:

Miri_Thompson

Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Website
www.amazon.com
That's a lot of good points and some interesting questions.

Let me deal with the atheism point first. Atheism within a religious culture will always be framed relative to the religion or religions of that culture. Some atheists have no interest in religion and therefore don't learn about religions outside of the ones they grew up surrounded by. Many of them therefore presume that all religions are like those. Note: this was one of the things about Christopher Hitchens that annoyed me a great deal.

I don't know if that's fair to Chris Hitchens. He grew up surrounded by Christianity. He discovered as an adult that he was born a Jew and more or less identified as a Jew thereafter . . . quite correctly, since being an atheist doesn't affect your identity as a Jew. And that takes a leap: in Christianity, your beliefs arguably define whether or not you're a Christian. That's not the case in Judaism, where you become a Jew only by being born into the religion or converting into it.

I hear arguments between theists and atheists in my synagogue. But our minority of atheists remain a fact of life there, and no one would dream of saying, "You can't be a Jew and an atheist!"

I guess this is why I find it hard to understand why there's sometimes such a divide between religion and atheism. So you're an atheist? So what? You're still going to say Kaddish for your departed parents, right? You're still coming to my Passover Seder, right?

But to bring this back to the OP . . . Jew, Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, Wiccan . . . whatever. To quote Frank Bruni of the New York Times, when it comes to a hate crime, "we're all in the crossfire."
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I don't know if that's fair to Chris Hitchens. He grew up surrounded by Christianity. He discovered as an adult that he was born a Jew and more or less identified as a Jew thereafter . . . quite correctly, since being an atheist doesn't affect your identity as a Jew. And that takes a leap: in Christianity, your beliefs arguably define whether or not you're a Christian. That's not the case in Judaism, where you become a Jew only by being born into the religion or converting into it.

I hear arguments between theists and atheists in my synagogue. But our minority of atheists remain a fact of life there, and no one would dream of saying, "You can't be a Jew and an atheist!"

I guess this is why I find it hard to understand why there's sometimes such a divide between religion and atheism. So you're an atheist? So what? You're still going to say Kaddish for your departed parents, right? You're still coming to my Passover Seder, right?

But to bring this back to the OP . . . Jew, Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, Wiccan . . . whatever. To quote Frank Bruni of the New York Times, when it comes to a hate crime, "we're all in the crossfire."

Being myself Jewish by extraction and atheist by inclination, I do understand this point. Although, yes on Seder, no on Kaddish. For me at least, memories and stories worth telling are on thing. Prayers are another.

Anyway, it was while he was debating a rabbi, that Hitchens showed his Christiancentric view of religion. I'll dig up the youtube link in a minute, but Hitchens didn't seem to grasp the idea of a religion centered on observance not faith.

I think this is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ckKcPKdJ4
It's a 2 hour six person debate. Well worth watching, to my mind.
 
Last edited:

Shaba

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
1,658
Reaction score
40
While there is much to admire in the core ideas of Christianity, I fear it is not so easy to separate the good aspects from the ill. The human mind can hold and follow helpful and harmful ways simultaneously. To assert that the people doing these things were hijackers misses the complexity of humanity and history. It also verges on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Looking at the history of Christianity, one sees this admixture at all times and places. One of the most startling examples I found was in the visionary writings of Saint Hildegard of Bingen whose Christian vision of holiness contains a savage anti-Jewish vision.

The reality is that for around two thousand years, there were anti-Jewish teachings in nearly all branches of Christianity. There still are in many. Challenges to these teachings are recent. That's good; religions evolve. But it's not as if the past forms of Christianity were false, impure, hijacked forms. They were different forms of Christianity, with different admixtures of good and ill.

Ignoring that history creates bewilderment at the kind of atrocity in the OP. But to anyone who has looked at the history of Christian and Jewish relations, it's not a strange event at all. The strange and wonderful thing is how rare it is these days.

Christianity does not have a good history of tolerance. Various branches of Christianity seem to be developing more tolerance these days. That's a great thing. It does bring the religion more in line with some of its neglected ideals.

But, if people neglect the history of intolerance they may find themselves complacent with whatever level of tolerance happens to be around at the present time. They may also decide that any attempted increase of tolerance and respect for others beyond that level is an attempt to undermine Christianity. And they may take up words, and laws, and arms against that rising tolerance, in the name of their religion.

I didn’t proofread this. I just don’t have the time, so I apologize in advance.

Of course I am not saying that all different forms of Christianity are bad; I'm saying the people practicing them as a way to hate or oppress others aren't practicing them the way Jesus wanted them to teach it. There's a big difference between the Old testament and New Testament, and it's actually very easy to separate the core ideas in Christianity if you understand that the New Testament supersedes the teachings of the Old Testament. It's pretty clear if you read and study the entire Bible and not just parts of it.

Humanity is very complex and so is the human mind. Trust me, I know. I have a degree in this and as well as physical science. Some hijackers know they are hijackers. Several popes were hijackers. The second Borgia Pope followed very little of the Bible’s teachings. Unfortunately, some hijackers of religion don’t realize they are hijackers (that doesn’t make them innocent of their faults. Ignorance of the law…you know the quote). All they have to do is ignore the most important messages of Jesus. Jesus went through a lot for us, and he never preached intolerance or hatred of others and he never taught violence. The adulterous woman is one of the better known stories and is now quoted by almost everyone. He saved her life even if she didn’t fall in line with his teachings or the laws of the Old Testament. That’s a very clear line in the sand, which should have taught Christians the lesson of not putting to death those who break the laws of God. This is just one of the many examples in the Bible where the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. Following this could have saved the lives of tens, if not hundreds of thousands burned at the stake because they didn’t follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught forgiveness not only in that story but also throughout his entire live, no matter what people do to you. After being labeled a blasphemer by several Jewish high priests, the most well-known being Caiaphus who plotted his death because Jesus’s influence was spreading and he feared that Rome would turn on the Jewish people if everyone started to believe in Jesus; being betrayed by Judas (whom he knew was going to betray him); being held captive while a violent, murderous man called Barabbas was released (a tradition during Passover) instead of him by a voting system of cheers by his Jewish brethren; being whipped; being forced to wear a crown of thorns; being spit at and beat while carrying the cross through the streets; being nailed on the cross; being given salt water to drink and stabbed in the side with a spear while on the cross, he said to his Father, while he was on that cross, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Jesus didn’t teach us to hate or alienate. The reality is that Saint Hildegard's vision of Christianity isn't close to what Jesus preached. The reality is that branches of Christianity that teach hate and the alienation of those who are different from you are or hold different views than you do aren’t teaching what Jesus preached. Jesus preached love and peace, not hate. Jesus preached acceptance of all people. Jesus ate with sinners; he didn’t alienate them or have some anti-vision to oppress them or kill them. He welcomed them. That’s what Christianity is supposed to be about. Where early Christians developed the ideas to oppress anyone is a puzzle to me because it’s the opposite of what Jesus preached. Christianity would have never had to evolve if people followed the teachings in the first place, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those who preached that message were burned at the stake themselves. That’s why I call these people and some branches hijackers. They twisted and manipulated the Bible to fit some crude black hole in their hearts and minds. Some did it knowingly, others didn’t. Doesn’t make it any less wrong.

Christianity does not have a good history of tolerance. I agree with you on that, but the truth is that neither do humans throughout human history and that is before and after religion was established. Humans start discriminating and mistreating others from a very early age (some studies are saying as young as a year). Many scientific studies are being done in this area, and as a science guy, it’s goes hand in hand with what I read in the Bible. Religious countries aren’t the only countries that tend to oppress others. Non-religious countries have been oppressing other since the past and in the present. China considers itself an atheist country. They have a terrible human-rights record especially against those who don’t agree with their views. North Korea is an atheist country too. I won’t even start on its abuses.

No one should neglect any part of history, especially those in which many lives were lost. Complacency is prevalent in most great tragedies—Slavery (not only the ones suffered by the Jewish people or African Americans), WII, the Holocaust, and The Trail of Tears, just to name a few. Those who fight tolerance are fighting against the very teachings that Jesus left us. There is no way to undermine Christianity, and those who say otherwise, in my opinion, are fear mongers. As long as I’m allowed to have my relationship with God and Jesus Christ, none can shake my faith, no matter if you take away my freedom, my bible, make fun of my beliefs, take away my ability to tithe, take away my place of worship. You can’t undermine the Kingdom of God because it’s bigger than just the Earth. Those who use words, laws, arms, and fear to manipulate the teachings of Jesus will be judged accordingly. Remember when Peter cut off the ear of one of the guards who came to arrest Jesus? What did Jesus say to him? To paraphrase, those who live by the sword die by the sword. Even though Peter became of the greatest pillars of Christianity, he died exactly how Jesus said he would.

Lastly, I always say God is powerful enough to control us like robots. He can turn us to dust in a flash for not obeying his laws. He used to in the Old Testament, not so much in the New Testament, which is why it is called the New Testament of God. So if God allows us to serve or not to serve him, to obey or not obey him, why should we impose laws restricting peaceful people from doing things that don’t agree with his teachings? Why should Christians think we know better than God does? God doesn’t need us to defend or fight for him or prove his existence to others who don’t believe. God can open the eyes of people by himself through various means. All we have to is preach the message of Jesus and let things fall where they may. Preaching the message isn’t about thumbing our noses down on others or judging them (especially because no Christian is without fault) but accepting them with an open heart and mind no matter how they treat us. Christianity isn’t about being perfect; it’s about what can you do for and how you treat your fellow man before you die.
 
Last edited:

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
I read today that his son died in a shootout with police after attacking a motorist who stopped to help him. Maybe McCardy's question about removing children from a certified haters household might make sense after all. I am also thinking of the Jeff Hall and Joseph Hall case--s6

Yeah, well, that sucks for Miller and I probably left my spare sympathy in my other pants pocket, but I don't give a damn what this poisonous little turd's motivations were. He's still a racist sack of shit.

What concerns me is how many other twisted little two-legged time bombs like Miller are tapping away on Stormwatch and other hate sites just waiting for their fuse to be lit?

Others already have.

The suspect in Sunday’s shooting outside two Jewish community centers in Kansas -- the most recent rampage based on the victims’ race, religion, sexual preference or membership in a particular group – had been blacklisted from Stormfront due to old disagreements with the site’s founder. He instead actively proselytized on a rival white power website.

In an interview with NBC News, Stormfront.org’s founder, Stephen Donald “Don” Black, called the SPLC report ludicrous.

“Anybody who comes on Stormfront and even suggests illegal violence ,they get shown the door,” he said. “I’m sure we’re stricter on that than Facebook or Twitter or Craigslist.”

“We have 286,000 registrations,” Black added. “The law of averages you’re going to have some people that lose it.”

The SPLC research, done over two years, bolsters the argument of some experts that the wide accessibility and anonymity of the Internet galvanizes those prone toward bias-related violence, particularly “lone wolves” who can seek out people who share radical ideas.

“The big difference between 1984 when I started and today is the Internet and the ability to reach a huge audience with very little effort,” David Gomez, a former FBI agent specializing in counterterrorism, told NBC News this week.

“You can write one tweet and have it go viral within a matter of minutes."

“For a person who is merely looking for validation of his own beliefs, it’s a tremendous tool,” he added.

Not all of the homicides detailed in the report were hate crimes against particular racial, religious or other groups. In some cases, users of the site turned on family members or cops. But the SPLC argues that the perpetrators’ hate-filled postings on Stormfront presaged their murderous capabilities.

Traffic to Stormfront.org surged after the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, according to an introduction on the site, which now has about 250,000 registered users and 9 million posts. Murders committed by Stormfront posters also accelerated after Obama’s 2009 inauguration, according to the SPLC.

Among the Stormfront users who have carried out violent attacks, according to the report:

• Anders Behring Breivik, who detonated a truck bomb in Oslo in July 2001 and then carried out a shooting spree at an island summer camp that left 69 people dead, most of them teenagers. He later told authorities he was retaliating against a government that allowed Norway to be “invaded” by Muslims. Breivik had posted to Stormfront for nearly three years before the killings, the SPLC found. A few hours before he exploded the truck in Oslo, he also mailed a racist manifesto to two other Stormfront users.

• Wade Michael Page, a white supremacist and Army veteran, shot six people and wounded four others in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August 2012 before taking his own life. The SPLC said he had been a registered Stormfront user for a decade.

• Richard Andrew Poplawski, 22, gunned down four Pittsburgh police officers in April 2009, killing three of them. The shooting spree came just hours he posted on Stormfront his concerns about changes in the logo of the Keystone State Skinheads. Poplawski had been active for nearly two years, the SPLC said, including posting pictures of his “Iron Eagle” Nazi tattoo in 2007.

Black, the site’s founder, has repeatedly denounced violence by the site’s users. In a 2012, for example, interview with a CBS affiliate, he said Page’s actions did not reflect the views of active users and were “counterproductive and hurts our cause.” The cause, as he routinely describes it, is to educate people “as to the threats we’re facing which we consider to be, literally, white genocide.”
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Shaba,
I appreciate the strength of your convictions. And I understand the value you place in your religion. I also don't dispute the core teachings of Christianity being tolerant.

But I have two problems with your recent post, and they directly relate to the OP. The first is that you talk about branches of Christianity that are not right. But it seems to me that human fallibility shows up side by side with human understanding in every aspect of humanity, religious and secular. There is no branch of anything that is free of error. Fundamentally, it strikes me as unwise to presume that error is ever absent. Therefore, I find it incautious to look at a man who would kill others for his beliefs and dismiss him as a product of an erroneous branch or erroneous heart. I look at him and I see a common mistake in all aspects of humanity. The willingness or desire to kill validated by convenient theory.


The second thing in your post that worries me is this:

This is just one of the many examples in the Bible where the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. Following this could have saved the lives of tens, if not hundreds of thousands burned at the stake because they didn’t follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught forgiveness not only in that story but also throughout his entire live, no matter what people do to you. After being labeled a blasphemer by several Jewish high priests, the most well-known being Caiaphus who plotted his death because Jesus’s influence was spreading and he feared that Rome would turn on the Jewish people if everyone started to believe in Jesus; being betrayed by Judas (whom he knew was going to betray him); being held captive while a violent, murderous man called Barabbas was released (a tradition during Passover) instead of him by a voting system of cheers by his Jewish brethren; being whipped; being forced to wear a crown of thorns; being spit at and beat while carrying the cross through the streets; being nailed on the cross; being given salt water to drink and stabbed in the side with a spear while on the cross, he said to his Father, while he was on that cross, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”

This is the story that for two thousand years justified pogroms. This is the part of the passion of Christ that has been turned into the reason to regard Jews as Christ-killers. But even if you take away the story, there is still this one line of doctrine,
the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament

That line is itself intolerant. It declares Judaism to be an error. It asserts, nay demands that Jews convert to Christianity. It does not say, that for Christians The New Testament supersedes the Old. It says it for all humanity.

That idea, expressed in its absolute form, has been used to treat Jews as deliberate rebels against God. Can you honestly say its expression is an expression of tolerance?
 

Hapax Legomenon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
22,289
Reaction score
1,491
The idea that Christianity is a bastion of tolerance because it has a shiny New Testament that superseded the "barbaric" Old Testament is a sentiment I've heard expressed by many Christians... and something I've never really seen substantiated. It's also something that makes most Jews very uncomfortable. So maybe it's not a great thing to bring up in a thread about a very antisemitic man committing a hate crime.
 

mccardey

Self-Ban
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
19,211
Reaction score
15,811
Location
Australia.
Atheism isn't an effect of Christianity or any other religion. Mistrust of atheists, and atheists being treated as fallen souls and corrupters of innocence, rather than people who simply see the world in a certain way, those are effects of religion.

I'm interested in this, Richard. Note that you're going to have to keep your explanation pretty simple for me. I didn't finish High School, so though I've learned a lot through reading since then, I don't have the language for discussing it that a lot of you do. Having said which - I would have thought in many instances atheism could well be an effect of religion, if you've been born into and strongly corralled by a religion and then found it wanting. I've known people - I grew up with people - who were raised in a strict form of Christianity. As they grew older, quite a few of them (particularly gay kids and those who loved them, but also some women who found the views on women restrictive) responded by examining, investigating, trying on other religions - and then ultimately turning away from the entire idea of religion and greater beings.

Without that early experience of religion, I would have thought most of them would have been agnostic. Most of my never-had-religion friends are proudly and cheerfully agnostic. I've always assumed agnosticism is the natural position for humans. Historically, in all other fields, we usually start from a position of not knowing - and then we imagine, investigate, test and retest. I'm thinking mostly about science, but exploration and political systems as well: it's how we develop our schools of thought and belief, our systems of knowledge. If it's natural for us to do that with most of the other things around us, why wouldn't it be natural to do that about god as well? And if it is, then doesn't that mean that our natural state is agnositicism, and doesn't that mean that it's likely that atheism is more likely to spring from contact or knowledge or study of religion than from a lack of awareness of it?

I told you my frames of reference for high level discussion were pretty low level. Is it clear what I'm saying at all? We can take it to PM if you think I'm just fogging things up.
 
Last edited: