Nearly 50% of Democrats believe Christians are a bigger threat to the US than Muslims

[Brian37]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/45.../75001.htm


What do you think about this, AF?

Hm. The ones who think so have a point, though I would point out the threat isn't Christians per se but Christianists. Just as the threat from Islam is from Islamists. The constant attempts by Christianists to get our government to endorse or promote their religion is a constant, nagging undermining of one of our most important values; and arguably separation of religion and state is part of the reason that the USA is the most religious developed country, though economic insecurity certainly plays a bigger role. The Dominionists want to outright take over the country, with some partial success reflected in the GOP becoming a branch of the Christian Right, and they have stated their intent to bring back stoning as a punishment for adultery.

However, in the long run, they'll fail. The GOP is fatally split, though it doesn't seem to know it yet. It won't survive as a viable Party if it doesn't jettison its extreme social conservatives. The Dominionists will never actually take over. Christianists in general are a pain in the ass, and would destroy what makes this country great if they could, but they're losing power as fast as they're losing their youth.

Some Islamists, on the other hand, would nuke us if they could. There's at least a small chance that some group will successfully get a nuke into a US city or otherwise manage a feat of terrorism that would kill many more people than we lost on 9/11.

It's a certain small and continuing, mostly bloodless attack on our values vs. a small chance of a successful devastating attack on our lives and property.

50% sounds about right.

ARRRRGGGGGGG!

Please dispense with trying to separate the empathetic left to the violent right by saying Christian vs Christianist, or Islam with Islamist. It is well intended, but it is exactly the wrong way to defend secular pluralism. 

The difference is the interpretation I agree, but the books they use are the same both sides use to come to those different conclusions to justify either empathy or cruelty. The source is still the same.

I have no problem with any religious person, say outside of logic issues, on the left who desires to live in peace with others. I do have a problem with the left who wont accept the source of morality stems from the same religion with the same heros from the same writings.

Malala who is a decent human, is still getting her morality from the same book violent Sunni's and Shiites use. A white tea party Baptist who votes for an asshole like Trump, is still basing their morality that Jesus is the one true god, that a liberal black Baptist uses to vote for Obama and values equality.

Holy books, by any label are used both to justify compassion while others use the same book to justify cruelty.

You cannot force religion out of existence but you can manage differences  much better by recognizing the cause of human division. No different than two kids fighting over a toy. The parent should say "Look guys, share or I take it away until you get along". (Metaphor, meaning you cant give religion credit(take away the claim to claim logic) for peace when all it does is fight) Either the logic is there, or it isn't.

Religion is divisive in every form of every label and always has been since we created the first organized written religion, some have been more violent than others, but no one religion has ever been efficient in unification 100% of the time, not even within the same label.

It is not eradication I am calling for, but a priority shift from defending blindly to accepting that it is a weapon and does cause divisions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why have we been digging these ditches and building these gulags then?   Gotta tell ya, I only signed up with the secular agenda because it said "eradiction" in big block letters on the recruitment posters.

[Brian37]

Why have we been digging these ditches and building these gulags then?   Gotta tell ya, I only signed up with the secular agenda because it said "eradiction" in big block letters on the recruitment posters.  

Yes because evil secularists are all atheists........ http://www.au.org  fuck, damn it, and I was going to put my poster of Stalin on my wall.

All we want is a little genocide, is that too much to ask of believers? Jeeze! KILLJOYS!

[*Deidre*]

I'll say this in a country that is majority christian and slowly dying not to mention
we don't have a good form of gun control and our media is well not good. So all in all i'll say yes.
We are more of a threat to our selves than some outside party is.

I'm going to go ahead and title this post "The Mega-Haiku of Despair"

Lol! I love haikus.

[Brian37]

I'm going to go ahead and title this post "The Mega-Haiku of Despair"

Lol! I love haikus.

Where are the lowkus?

[Whateverist]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/45.../75001.htm


What do you think about this, AF?

I see very little choice but to wipe out all Christians, do you?

---

---

[Whateverist]

But are they True Xtians?

For that matter are we True atheists?  *pauses to reflect*  Yep.

[Brian37]

But are they True Xtians?

For that matter are we True atheists?  *pauses to reflect*  Yep.

If all atheists love Hitler because believers want to claim he was an atheist, then all men with mustaches love Hitler too.

[Mister Agenda]

Hm. The ones who think so have a point, though I would point out the threat isn't Christians per se but Christianists. Just as the threat from Islam is from Islamists. The constant attempts by Christianists to get our government to endorse or promote their religion is a constant, nagging undermining of one of our most important values; and arguably separation of religion and state is part of the reason that the USA is the most religious developed country, though economic insecurity certainly plays a bigger role. The Dominionists want to outright take over the country, with some partial success reflected in the GOP becoming a branch of the Christian Right, and they have stated their intent to bring back stoning as a punishment for adultery.

However, in the long run, they'll fail. The GOP is fatally split, though it doesn't seem to know it yet. It won't survive as a viable Party if it doesn't jettison its extreme social conservatives. The Dominionists will never actually take over. Christianists in general are a pain in the ass, and would destroy what makes this country great if they could, but they're losing power as fast as they're losing their youth.

Some Islamists, on the other hand, would nuke us if they could. There's at least a small chance that some group will successfully get a nuke into a US city or otherwise manage a feat of terrorism that would kill many more people than we lost on 9/11.

It's a certain small and continuing, mostly bloodless attack on our values vs. a small chance of a successful devastating attack on our lives and property.

50% sounds about right.

ARRRRGGGGGGG!

Please dispense with trying to separate the empathetic left to the violent right by saying Christian vs Christianist, or Islam with Islamist. It is well intended, but it is exactly the wrong way to defend secular pluralism. 

The difference is the interpretation I agree, but the books they use are the same both sides use to come to those different conclusions to justify either empathy or cruelty. The source is still the same.

I have no problem with any religious person, say outside of logic issues, on the left who desires to live in peace with others. I do have a problem with the left who wont accept the source of morality stems from the same religion with the same heros from the same writings.

Malala who is a decent human, is still getting her morality from the same book violent Sunni's and Shiites use. A white tea party Baptist who votes for an asshole like Trump, is still basing their morality that Jesus is the one true god, that a liberal black Baptist uses to vote for Obama and values equality.

Holy books, by any label are used both to justify compassion while others use the same book to justify cruelty.

You cannot force religion out of existence but you can manage differences  much better by recognizing the cause of human division. No different than two kids fighting over a toy. The parent should say "Look guys, share or I take it away until you get along". (Metaphor, meaning you cant give religion credit(take away the claim to claim logic) for peace when all it does is fight) Either the logic is there, or it isn't.

Religion is divisive in every form of every label and always has been since we created the first organized written religion, some have been more violent than others, but no one religion has ever been efficient in unification 100% of the time, not even within the same label.

It is not eradication I am calling for, but a priority shift from defending blindly to accepting that it is a weapon and does cause divisions.

Fuck you. I will use the terminology I prefer. As far as I know, I was the first person to use the term, and I'm very pleased with how it's catching on. I suggest you get used to it.

[Edwardo Piet]

All the abrahamnic religions suck donkey balls.