Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on June 09, 2009, 07:42:01 PM
-
If so on what grounds?
Are there any atheist or agnostic radical/extremist pro-life groups?
They all seem to be christian/catholic
-
hahahahahhaa
ouch.
-
those godless atheists having sex before marriage - we can't trust them ;D
-
those godless atheists having sex before marriage - we can't trust them ;D
christians have sex before marriage too.
they just lie about it
-
christians have sex before marriage too.
they just lie about it
WHAT!!? You mean Christians are hypocrites - no that can't be and I had so much faith :'(
-
If so on what grounds?
Are there any atheist or agnostic radical/extremist pro-life groups?
They all seem to be christian/catholic
Well the man was obviously unstable, who knows what could have set him off. I'm sure there are athiest and or agnostics out there who think abortion is morally wrong, just from a human standpoint.
Yeah its easy to take ot shots at Christians, but a true Christian wouldn't act in the manner of extremest groups, Fred Phelps and the like.
Perhaps if more Christians took this stance,
Matthew 7,1-5
Jesus said to his disciples: 'Do not judge, and you will not be judged; because the judgements you give are the judgements you will get, and the standard you use will be the standard used for you. Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own? And how dare you say to your brother, "Let me take that splinter out of your eye," when, look, there is a great log in your own? Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.'
-
Well the man was obviously unstable, who knows what could have set him off. I'm sure there are athiest and or agnostics out there who think abortion is morally wrong, just from a human standpoint.
Yeah its easy to take ot shots at Christians, but a true Christian wouldn't act in the manner of extremest groups, Fred Phelps and the like.
Perhaps if more Christians took this stance,
Matthew 7,1-5
Jesus said to his disciples: 'Do not judge, and you will not be judged; because the judgements you give are the judgements you will get, and the standard you use will be the standard used for you. Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own? And how dare you say to your brother, "Let me take that splinter out of your eye," when, look, there is a great log in your own? Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.'
I totally agree that if more christians (and atheist and agnostics too) tried to follow the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount this entire planet would be a much better place
-
I don't condone any murderer but think about the ideal you seem to be supporting. Detailing communism's crimes from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989, violence committed in the name of communism/atheism puts the death toll between 85 and 100 million victims dwarfing all other religious conflicts in history combined.
As quoted by one of the evil masters instrumental in guiding the history of this planet: "atheism is the true origins of savagery and the most bloody turmoil".
-
True Adonis.....
Paging True Adonis....
-
I don't condone any murderer but think about the ideal you seem to be supporting. Detailing communism's crimes from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989, violence committed in the name of communism/atheism puts the death toll between 85 and 100 million victims dwarfing all other religious conflicts in history combined.
As quoted by one of the evil masters instrumental in guiding the history of this planet: "atheism is the true origins of savagery and the most bloody turmoil".
these weren't done in the "name of atheism"
-
these weren't done in the "name of atheism"
Indeed, in the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc.etc etc... produced the kind of mass slaughter that no inquisitor could possibly match.
-
Indeed, in the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc.etc etc... produced the kind of mass slaughter that no inquisitor could possibly match.
who else besides religious people were targeted?
-
these weren't done in the "name of atheism"
roeders action werent done in the name of christianity either seeing as christianity doesnt advocate those actions...they were done in the name of the nutbags beliefs not christian beliefs... ::)
-
roeders action werent done in the name of christianity either seeing as christianity doesnt advocate those actions...they were done in the name of the nutbags beliefs not christian beliefs... ::)
Based on this, I'm expecting you to never say another negative word about Muslims again!
-
roeders action werent done in the name of christianity either seeing as christianity doesnt advocate those actions...they were done in the name of the nutbags beliefs not christian beliefs... ::)
I'll bet you a dollar that he thought his actions were in defense (or in the name) of christianity
I'm well aware that most christians don't advocate these actions
did you watch the Schaeffer video?
-
I'll bet you a dollar that he thought his actions were in defense (or in the name) of christianity
I'm well aware that most christians don't advocate these actions
did you watch the Schaeffer video?
thinking and actually doing are 2 different things straw
are you well aware that christianity doesnt advocate such actions? if you are then how can you seriously think that this mans actions are in the name of christianity?
i watched your maddow vid already today straw ill watch you schaef vid tomorrow.
-
thinking and actually doing are 2 different things straw
are you well aware that christianity doesnt advocate such actions? if you are then how can you seriously think that this mans actions are in the name of christianity?
i watched your maddow vid already today straw ill watch you schaef vid tomorrow.
yep and incitement is different from thinking and doing too
so is criminal conspiracy
-
yep and incitement is different from thinking and doing too
so is criminal conspiracy
please show me how operation rescue incited this, again you cant show me how they or christianity incites this type of violence. ITS THE NUTJOB THAT INCITES THIS TYPE OF VIOLENCE if it wasnt then this type of action would be much more prevalent.
-
please show me how operation rescue incited this, again you cant show me how they or christianity incites this type of violence. ITS THE NUTJOB THAT INCITES THIS TYPE OF VIOLENCE if it wasnt then this type of action would be much more prevalent.
I'm not doing the investigation
try to calm down if you can
-
I'm not doing the investigation
try to calm down if you can
you are the one making assertions and as such its up to you to prove your assertions...
-
you are the one making assertions and as such its up to you to prove your assertions...
what assertions?
what rule says I have to prove anything to you?
seriously man, everything I write is relatively clear (assuming no typos)
-
Indeed, in the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc.etc etc... produced the kind of mass slaughter that no inquisitor could possibly match.
From "A License to Kill: Atheism and the Mass Murders of History (Chapter 19)", of "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza
While they regularly fault religion for its role in promoting conflict and violence, secular writers rarely examine the role of atheism in producing wars and killing. It's interesting that we routinely hear about how much historical suffering religion has caused. Five hundred years after the Inquisition, we are still talking about it, but less than two decades after the collapse of "godless Communism", there is an eerie silence about the mass grave of the Soviet Gulag. Why the absense of accountability? Does atheism mean never having to say you're sorry?
In the past one hundred years or so, the most powerful atheistic regimes--Communist Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany--have wiped outout people in astronomical numbers. Stalin was responsible for about 20 million deaths, produced through mass slayings, forced labor camps, show trials followed by firing squads, population relocation, starvation, and so on. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's recent studyMao: The Unknown Story attributes to Mao Zedong's regime a staggering 70 million deaths. Some China scholars think Chang and Halliday's numbers are a bit high, but the authors present convincing evidence that Mao's atheist regime was the most murderous in world history.
Stalin's and Mao's killings--unlike those of, say, the Crusades or the Thirty Years' War--were done in peacetime and were ;erformed on their fellow countrymen. Hitler comes a distance third with around 10 million murders, 6 million of them Jews.
In short, the followers of Islam and Chrisitanity, for all of their flaws, aren't even CLOSE to amassing the amount of bodies that either Stalin or Mao racked up.
-
what assertions?
what rule says I have to prove anything to you?
seriously man, everything I write is relatively clear (assuming no typos)
you assert that operation rescue and ludicrously religion are culpable for this nut jobs action...
russels teapot...LOOK IT UP another logic thing...who knew you wouldnt know?
-
Its obvious that most crimes are because of Christians and operation rescue.Lets see,we have 5 doctors in the history of this country that have been shot down by anti-abortionists.Lets compare that to how many whites have been gun downed by blacks.Certainly,it must be because they are black that they are prone to murder.It must be leaders like Obama,Jackson and Sharpton who inspire such hatred.It cant possibly be just a bunch of nuts or criminals doing what they do.There has to be some more evil motive behind it.Stupid.
-
who else besides religious people were targeted?
Educated people, teachers, basically anyone who could think on their own and counter what the communist were trying to do.
-
Atheists have better things than abortion to worry about.
-
you assert that operation rescue and ludicrously religion are culpable for this nut jobs action...
russels teapot...LOOK IT UP another logic thing...who knew you wouldnt know?
I asserted nothing of the kind in this thread and in other threads I suggested a link might be found during the investigation.
Again, watch the Peter Schaeffer video. He explains exactly how the religious right uses specific rhetoric to intentionally rile up the unstable people on the fringe of the of pro-life movement and when something bad happens they pretend to condemn the violence and act as if they have no clue what could have motivated the action.
-
From "A License to Kill: Atheism and the Mass Murders of History (Chapter 19)", of "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza
While they regularly fault religion for its role in promoting conflict and violence, secular writers rarely examine the role of atheism in producing wars and killing. It's interesting that we routinely hear about how much historical suffering religion has caused. Five hundred years after the Inquisition, we are still talking about it, but less than two decades after the collapse of "godless Communism", there is an eerie silence about the mass grave of the Soviet Gulag. Why the absense of accountability? Does atheism mean never having to say you're sorry?
In the past one hundred years or so, the most powerful atheistic regimes--Communist Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany--have wiped outout people in astronomical numbers. Stalin was responsible for about 20 million deaths, produced through mass slayings, forced labor camps, show trials followed by firing squads, population relocation, starvation, and so on. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's recent studyMao: The Unknown Story attributes to Mao Zedong's regime a staggering 70 million deaths. Some China scholars think Chang and Halliday's numbers are a bit high, but the authors present convincing evidence that Mao's atheist regime was the most murderous in world history.
Stalin's and Mao's killings--unlike those of, say, the Crusades or the Thirty Years' War--were done in peacetime and were ;erformed on their fellow countrymen. Hitler comes a distance third with around 10 million murders, 6 million of them Jews.
In short, the followers of Islam and Chrisitanity, for all of their flaws, aren't even CLOSE to amassing the amount of bodies that either Stalin or Mao racked up.
who else did the communists and nazi's target for extinction besides religious people?
-
Its obvious that most crimes are because of Christians and operation rescue.Lets see,we have 5 doctors in the history of this country that have been shot down by anti-abortionists.Lets compare that to how many whites have been gun downed by blacks.Certainly,it must be because they are black that they are prone to murder.It must be leaders like Obama,Jackson and Sharpton who inspire such hatred.It cant possibly be just a bunch of nuts or criminals doing what they do.There has to be some more evil motive behind it.Stupid.
Worthless post.
The topic is Christians/atheists and the acts of violence due to their beliefs.
You attempt to draw a comparision to race violence.
Completely irrelevant. You simply can't stop the "race" issue long enough to even post on a simple topic for once.
-
who else did the communists and nazi's target for extinction besides religious people?
Bro, you are attempting to use logic and facts on the wrong kind of people here.
-
Bro, you are attempting to use logic and facts on the wrong kind of people here.
yeah you're right and I'm too busy today to spend much time with it
-
you assert that operation rescue and ludicrously religion are culpable for this nut jobs action...
By that standard.....(from D'Souza's book, same chapter).
In comparing the crimes of religion and the crimes of atheism, it’s important for us to apply a consistent standard. Philosopher Daniel Dennett supplies such a standard in his book Breaking The Spell. He proposes that religion be judged by its consequence, or, as the biblical expression has it, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Dennett doesn’t particularly care whether these consequences were intended by the founders of the religion or if it represents its highest values. He’s not especially interested in separating the true teachings of religion from its distortions. “It is true that religious fanatics are rarely if ever inspired by, or guided by, the deepest and best tenets in those religious traditions. So what? Al Qaeda and Hamas terrorism is still Islam’s responsibility and ABORTION CLINIC BOMBING is still Christianity’s responsibility” This is all very fine. Let’s accept Dennett’s standards. But they by the very same criterion, the millions of murders committed by Stalin, Hitler, Mao—not to mention those of a range of lesser tyrants—are all atheism’s responsibility…..
If Christianity has to answer for Torquemada, atheism has to answer for Stalin. By the same token, if the ordinary Christian who has never burned anyone at the stake must bear the same responsibility for what other self-styled Christians have done on behalf of their religion, then atheists who think of themselves are the kinder, gentler type do not get to absolve themselves for the horrible suffering that their beliefs have cause in recent history.
who else did the communists and nazi's target for extinction besides religious people?
Bro, you are attempting to use logic and facts on the wrong kind of people here.
Neither Straw Man nor you do anything of the sort. For starters, Kazan already answered his question. Of course, since no one made the claim that religious people were targeted exclusively, the foolish conclusion that Straw Man is trying to reach holds no weight, especially since (in the simplest of terms) people are either religious or they are not.
D'Souza's book continues to point out the blatantly obvious (but foolish) tactics of non-believers, who try to lump the atrocities of religion to the core beliefs of its followers, past and present, while AVOIDING/whitewashing association with atheists who commit similar atrocities (though much higher in scale and volume) with themselves and their core beliefs.
-
If so on what grounds?
Are there any atheist or agnostic radical/extremist pro-life groups?
They all seem to be christian/catholic
BBC NEWS
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
At least eight people were killed when an 18-year-old gunman opened fire at a school in Finland Wednesday, according to Finnish police...
...In the rambling text posted on the site, Auvinen said that he is "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist.
"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," he wrote. "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."...
...Sipila said that Finland, which has a population of about five million, has around two million firearms, although gun laws are tough. "We do not know where he got it from," he said
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7082795.stm
And Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all atheist leaders murdered millions of innocent people less than 80 years ago.
-
BBC NEWS
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
At least eight people were killed when an 18-year-old gunman opened fire at a school in Finland Wednesday, according to Finnish police...
...In the rambling text posted on the site, Auvinen said that he is "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist.
"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," he wrote. "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."...
...Sipila said that Finland, which has a population of about five million, has around two million firearms, although gun laws are tough. "We do not know where he got it from," he said
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7082795.stm
And Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all atheist leaders murdered millions of innocent people less than 80 years ago.
Let's see if Straw Man is "too busy" to address this one.
-
From "A License to Kill: Atheism and the Mass Murders of History (Chapter 19)", of "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza
While they regularly fault religion for its role in promoting conflict and violence, secular writers rarely examine the role of atheism in producing wars and killing. It's interesting that we routinely hear about how much historical suffering religion has caused. Five hundred years after the Inquisition, we are still talking about it, but less than two decades after the collapse of "godless Communism", there is an eerie silence about the mass grave of the Soviet Gulag. Why the absense of accountability? Does atheism mean never having to say you're sorry?
In the past one hundred years or so, the most powerful atheistic regimes--Communist Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany--have wiped outout people in astronomical numbers. Stalin was responsible for about 20 million deaths, produced through mass slayings, forced labor camps, show trials followed by firing squads, population relocation, starvation, and so on. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's recent studyMao: The Unknown Story attributes to Mao Zedong's regime a staggering 70 million deaths. Some China scholars think Chang and Halliday's numbers are a bit high, but the authors present convincing evidence that Mao's atheist regime was the most murderous in world history.
Stalin's and Mao's killings--unlike those of, say, the Crusades or the Thirty Years' War--were done in peacetime and were ;erformed on their fellow countrymen. Hitler comes a distance third with around 10 million murders, 6 million of them Jews.
In short, the followers of Islam and Chrisitanity, for all of their flaws, aren't even CLOSE to amassing the amount of bodies that either Stalin or Mao racked up.
Strawman...they didn't have the technology to do it. You can't make comparisons like that. If they had had mass transport, machine guns, radios, etc...it would likely have been similar.
-
Strawman...they didn't have the technology to do it. You can't make comparisons like that. If they had had mass transport, machine guns, radios, etc...it would likely have been similar.
Oh, yes you can, especially considering the Crusades laster far longer than Stalin's regime.
D’Souza covers that weak canard in the same chapter:
Religion-inspired killing simply cannot compete with the murders perpetrated by atheist regimes. I recognize that population levels were much lower in the past, and that it’s easier to kill people today with sophisticated weapons that it was in previous years with swords and arrows. Even taking higher population levels into account, atheist violence surpasses religious violence by staggering proportions. Here is a rough calculation. The world’s population rose from around 500 million in 1450 to 2.5 billion in 1950, a fivefold increase. Taken together, the Crusades, Inquisition, and the witch burnings killed approximately 200,000 people. Adjusting for the increase in population, that’s the equivalent of one million deaths today. Even do, these deaths caused by Christian rulers over a 500-year-period amount to only 1 percent of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in the space of a few decades
Basically, Hitler's regime topped the body count of the Crusades, Inquisition and the Salem Witch trials, by at least TENFOLD......ALL BY ITSELF.
We can see the difference by looking at attitudes towards Jews in medieval Europe. In 15th-century Spain, a Jew could escape Christian persecution simply by converting to Christianity. Ferdinand and Isabella did not object to having ethnic Jews in Spain; they objected to the practice of Judaism in what they wanted to be a completely Catholic country.
Hitler’s objection to Jews, on the other hand, was not religious. A Jew could not escape Auschwitz by pleading, “I no longer practice Judaism”, “I am an atheist”, or “I have converted to Christianity”. This mattered nothing to Hitler because he believed the Jews were inferior racial stock. His anti-Semitism was secular.
So, this claim that atheist regimes slayed millions more, due only to possession of better and more weapons is preposterous.
-
Let's see if Straw Man is "too busy" to address this one.
Because of threads like this by Straw Man, I am beginning to believe Beach Bum when he says that Straw Man is nothing but a paranoid, anti-religion extremist. :)
-
Worthless post.
The topic is Christians/atheists and the acts of violence due to their beliefs.
You attempt to draw a comparision to race violence.
Completely irrelevant. You simply can't stop the "race" issue long enough to even post on a simple topic for once.
The comparrison is as obvious as David Lettermans hook nose.YOU CANT BLAME others for someones nuttiness.The guy is a christian?So what?He was also an anti-government guy.The guy that shot the recruiter is a muslim BUT also acriminal who was in prison.The idea that you blame Christianity for a kooks behavior is stupid.There are MILLIONS of Christians in this country.FIVE abortion doctors have been shot.FIVE!!!EVER!!!!!If Christians were more prone to violence EVERY abortion doctor would be killed.
-
Let's see if Straw Man is "too busy" to address this one.
yep - I am pretty busy this morning but what would you like me to say.
There are nutbags on all sides
Unlike the bible thumpers on this site I would not deny that this guy beliefs triggered his violence.
Now how about the same acknowledgement from your side regarding Roeder and the other people driven to violence by their religious beliefs
-
Because of threads like this by Straw Man, I am beginning to believe Beach Bum when he says that Straw Man is nothing but a paranoid, anti-religion extremist. :)
relax loco - I'm probably one of the more tolearant people on this board and I have nothing against religion (as you should know). My only problem is with religious extremists
-
By that standard.....(from D'Souza's book, same chapter).
Neither Straw Man nor you do anything of the sort. For starters, Kazan already answered his question. Of course, since no one made the claim that religious people were targeted exclusively, the foolish conclusion that Straw Man is trying to reach holds no weight, especially since (in the simplest of terms) people are either religious or they are not.
the problem with you (and some of your buddies on this board) is that you can only see things in simplistic terms even when the issue is complicated and nuanced (as most are)
I didn't see Kazan's post but I went back and read it and he said:
"Educated people, teachers, basically anyone who could think on their own and counter what the communist were trying to do"
So should we assume that the Nazi's and Communist were pushing an atheist agenda or just trying to kill anyone who could think and possibly be a threat. Would teacher say they were pushing an anti-education agenda or an anti-intellectual agenda (that actually may be close to the truth).
The atheist angle may be a feature of the Nazi or Communist agenda but not a reason for their existence.
I have a cup holder in my car but the purpose of my car is not to hold cups but to provide transortation (okay that's the best I can do off the top of my head).
This site is becoming a bad habit during the work day.
I'm outa here until the afternoon/evening
-
The comparrison is as obvious as David Lettermans hook nose.YOU CANT BLAME others for someones nuttiness.The guy is a christian?So what?He was also an anti-government guy.The guy that shot the recruiter is a muslim BUT also acriminal who was in prison.The idea that you blame Christianity for a kooks behavior is stupid.There are MILLIONS of Christians in this country.FIVE abortion doctors have been shot.FIVE!!!EVER!!!!!If Christians were more prone to violence EVERY abortion doctor would be killed.
Just five? The atheist guy from Finland murdered more than that by himself in one day. And millions of innocent people were murdered by atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
-
yep - I am pretty busy this morning but what would you like me to say.
There are nutbags on all sides
Unlike the bible thumpers on this site I would not deny that this guy beliefs triggered his violence.
Now how about the same acknowledgement from your side regarding Roeder and the other people driven to violence by their religious beliefs
As i stated earlier there is a point when religious beliefs stop and a persons personal beliefs begin obviously its not a religious belief to go around killing ppl. Sure they are his religious beliefs but they are not religious beliefs if you understand the difference. you cannot use his actions to demonize religion like you want to do.
until you can show that the bible advocates such actions then those actions taken by roeder where not in the name of christianity, they were in the name of his individual beliefs
-
As i stated earlier there is a point when religious beliefs stop and a persons personal beliefs begin obviously its not a religious belief to go around killing ppl. Sure they are his religious beliefs but they are not religious beliefs if you understand the difference. you cannot use his actions to demonize religion like you want to do.
until you can show that the bible advocates such actions then those actions taken by roeder where not in the name of christianity, they were in the name of his individual beliefs
tony - there is violence all over the bible. I would post the quotes but then our resident bible scholars would rationalize why they don't apply today
Again, I have no problem with religion but I do have a problem with religious extremists.
Scott Roeder is a religious extremist and a terrorist. Why do you keep deny that HIS religous beliefs motivated his actions?
ok - I'm really out of here until tonight.
-
tony - there is violence all over the bible. I would post the quotes but then our resident bible scholars would rationalize why they don't apply today
Again, I have no problem with religion but I do have a problem with religious extremists.
Scott Roeder is a religious extremist and a terrorist. Why do you keep deny that HIS religous beliefs motivated his actions?
ok - I'm really out of here until tonight.
i already stated that HIS religious beliefs played a role in this but HIS religious beliefs are not RELIGIOUS BELIEFS...yes there is violence all over the bible that doesnt mean the bible advocates this type of violence does it? ive asked you time and time again to show me and you havent so ill assume you cant proving my point.
you certainly do have a problem with religion straw its probably the most prevelant characteristic of your posts on this board. You say one thing in one thread and say where did i say that in THIS THREAD...LOL did you all of a sudden stop believing what you typed in the other threads?
-
From "A License to Kill: Atheism and the Mass Murders of History (Chapter 19)", of "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza
While they regularly fault religion for its role in promoting conflict and violence, secular writers rarely examine the role of atheism in producing wars and killing. It's interesting that we routinely hear about how much historical suffering religion has caused. Five hundred years after the Inquisition, we are still talking about it, but less than two decades after the collapse of "godless Communism", there is an eerie silence about the mass grave of the Soviet Gulag. Why the absense of accountability? Does atheism mean never having to say you're sorry?
In the past one hundred years or so, the most powerful atheistic regimes--Communist Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany--have wiped outout people in astronomical numbers. Stalin was responsible for about 20 million deaths, produced through mass slayings, forced labor camps, show trials followed by firing squads, population relocation, starvation, and so on. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's recent studyMao: The Unknown Story attributes to Mao Zedong's regime a staggering 70 million deaths. Some China scholars think Chang and Halliday's numbers are a bit high, but the authors present convincing evidence that Mao's atheist regime was the most murderous in world history.
Stalin's and Mao's killings--unlike those of, say, the Crusades or the Thirty Years' War--were done in peacetime and were ;erformed on their fellow countrymen. Hitler comes a distance third with around 10 million murders, 6 million of them Jews.
In short, the followers of Islam and Chrisitanity, for all of their flaws, aren't even CLOSE to amassing the amount of bodies that either Stalin or Mao racked up.
Not sure if it's YOU or Dinesh D'Souza who has it wrong, ...but Hitler was no atheist. That man was a devout Catholic
-
Oh Good Lord. What a stupid question/thread. ::)
-
Because of threads like this by Straw Man, I am beginning to believe Beach Bum when he says that Straw Man is nothing but a paranoid, anti-religion extremist. :)
It's true. lol. :)
Remember he thinks anyone with a fundamentalist belief in religion is mentally ill. :)
-
Not sure if it's YOU or Dinesh D'Souza who has it wrong, ...but Hitler was no atheist. That man was a devout Catholic
AHHHH!!! The ol' pass-the-buck routine, by claiming Hitler was Catholic.
Not quite!!!
Hitler’s Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer’s private opinions assembled by a close aid during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the greatest “scourges” of history and said of the Germans, “Let’s be the only people who are immunized against this disease”. He promised that “through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity”. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution. Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler’s leading advisers—Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich, and Bormann—were atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence on Germany.
Some atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens have sought to push Hitler into the religious camp by pointing to Nazism as a “quasi-pagan phenomenon”. Hitler may have been a polytheist who worshipped the pagan gods, these writers say, but polytheism is still theism.
-
Just five? The atheist guy from Finland murdered more than that by himself in one day. And millions of innocent people were murdered by atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
So what you are claiming is that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot only targeted people who were religious. Is that correct?
Otherwise, if they murdered a single atheist, there is no way you can draw a comparision with your little example. They were murderers. Plain and simple.
-
So what you are claiming is that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot only targeted people who were religious. Is that correct?
Otherwise, if they murdered a single atheist, there is no way you can draw a comparision with your little example. They were murderers. Plain and simple.
I am claiming only the truth, that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists and they murdered millions of innocent people. That's what I'm claiming. Deal with it!
This guy, Scott Roeder, may have claimed to be a Christian, but he shot another Christian. And his justification for it was not a religious one, but the same secular argument that both secular and religious anti-abortion people use, to defend the unborns' right to life.
-
I doubt he would have murdered Dr. Tiller... He probably would have found another reason to murder someone else though.
Crazy is crazy.
-
Loco didn't you post something about Jeffrey Dahmer becoming a Christian after he was in prison, after his murderous rampage?
Did Ted Bundy have a jailhouse conversion too?
-
I doubt he would have murdered Dr. Tiller... He probably would have found another reason to murder someone else though.
Crazy is crazy.
I agree. Crazy is crazy. This nut was apparantly previously treated for mental illness.
-
Just five? The atheist guy from Finland murdered more than that by himself in one day. And millions of innocent people were murdered by atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
I said FIVE abortion doctors in this country!!!I cant speak for the rest of the world.
-
I said FIVE abortion doctors in this country!!!I cant speak for the rest of the world.
How many receptionists, innocent passersby, etc were merely collateral damage?
How many businesses interfered with, locks glued shut, offices blown up resulting in a lack of prenatal care for women who wanted to give birth to healthy babies.? To say it's only 5 is ridulous. It's 5 too many.
-
How many receptionists, innocent passersby, etc were merely collateral damage?
How many businesses interfered with, locks glued shut, offices blown up resulting in a lack of prenatal care for women who wanted to give birth to healthy babies.? To say it's only 5 is ridulous. It's 5 too many.
Thats your opinion.I wish it were 5,000.I find it amusing that the left gets all worked up over the anti-abortion crowd,but votes in a guy who was pals with Bill Ayers who DID THE SAME EXACT STUFF except ,like a typical lib,he was so icompetant at it ,they ended up blowing themseloves up.
-
Oh, yes you can, especially considering the Crusades laster far longer than Stalin's regime.
D’Souza covers that weak canard in the same chapter:
Religion-inspired killing simply cannot compete with the murders perpetrated by atheist regimes. I recognize that population levels were much lower in the past, and that it’s easier to kill people today with sophisticated weapons that it was in previous years with swords and arrows. Even taking higher population levels into account, atheist violence surpasses religious violence by staggering proportions. Here is a rough calculation. The world’s population rose from around 500 million in 1450 to 2.5 billion in 1950, a fivefold increase. Taken together, the Crusades, Inquisition, and the witch burnings killed approximately 200,000 people. Adjusting for the increase in population, that’s the equivalent of one million deaths today. Even do, these deaths caused by Christian rulers over a 500-year-period amount to only 1 percent of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in the space of a few decades
Basically, Hitler's regime topped the body count of the Crusades, Inquisition and the Salem Witch trials, by at least TENFOLD......ALL BY ITSELF.
We can see the difference by looking at attitudes towards Jews in medieval Europe. In 15th-century Spain, a Jew could escape Christian persecution simply by converting to Christianity. Ferdinand and Isabella did not object to having ethnic Jews in Spain; they objected to the practice of Judaism in what they wanted to be a completely Catholic country.
Hitler’s objection to Jews, on the other hand, was not religious. A Jew could not escape Auschwitz by pleading, “I no longer practice Judaism”, “I am an atheist”, or “I have converted to Christianity”. This mattered nothing to Hitler because he believed the Jews were inferior racial stock. His anti-Semitism was secular.
So, this claim that atheist regimes slayed millions more, due only to possession of better and more weapons is preposterous.
Wow, they only wanted to force them to convert. How nice of them...
As has been said a million times before none of these men did these things in the name of their atheism. They followers and leaders of secular religions. Whatever their specific reasons it is clear they didn't do these things because they were demanding too much rationality and too much evidence for their beliefs.
-
Wow, they only wanted to force them to convert. How nice of them...
As has been said a million times before none of these men did these things in the name of their atheism. They followers and leaders of secular religions. Whatever their specific reasons it is clear they didn't do these things because they were demanding too much rationality and too much evidence for their beliefs.
And the difference between secular religion and atheism would be.............
-
And the difference between secular religion and atheism would be.............
Secular religion is filled with dogma; that is the real problem, unquestioning adherence to some set of unproven beliefs or principles. Dogma pervades both secular ideologies and religious ones. Atheism is the mere absence of belief in deities and whilst it is true some people choose to organise themselves around their atheism that still doesn't fit the standard definition of atheism. The vast majority of my friends are atheists for example and we never talk about it, much less organise anything around our shared atheism. Dogma, be it Communist, Fascist, Christian or Hindu is dogma. As I said, all these belief systems share a lack of evidence and a lack of demand for rational enquiry.
-
Secular religion is filled with dogma; that is the real problem, unquestioning adherence to some set of unproven beliefs or principles. Dogma pervades both secular ideologies and religious ones. Atheism is the mere absence of belief in deities and whilst it is true some people choose to organise themselves around their atheism that still doesn't fit the standard definition of atheism. The vast majority of my friends are atheists for example and we never talk about it, much less organise anything around our shared atheism. Dogma, be it Communist, Fascist, Christian or Hindu is dogma. As I said, all these belief systems share a lack of evidence and a lack of demand for rational enquiry.
That may be the definition, in theory (jury's still out on that). But in practice, atheism is HARDLY the mere lack of belief in a supernatural deity. It is, instead, a deliberate and calculated hostility towards religion and people of faith, in both word and deed.
You might to tell them that they ain't really atheists, along with those folks in California, discussed some time ago, who attend those humanist centers on Sundays to mimick their Christian counterparts' church attendance.
-
That may be the definition, in theory (jury's still out on that). But in practice, atheism is HARDLY the mere lack of belief in a supernatural deity. It is, instead, a deliberate and calculated hostility towards religion and people of faith, in both word and deed.
I disagree with this completely.
-
I disagree with this completely.
A number of atheists do. However, some of the (as I like to call them) Flavors-of-the-Month in the world of atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al.) espouse views and rhetoric that hardly reflect people who simply don't believe there is a God.
-
That may be the definition, in theory (jury's still out on that). But in practice, atheism is HARDLY the mere lack of belief in a supernatural deity. It is, instead, a deliberate and calculated hostility towards religion and people of faith, in both word and deed.
I agree with this completely, and Straw Man's multiple anti-Christian threads are a great example of it.
-
That may be the definition, in theory (jury's still out on that). But in practice, atheism is HARDLY the mere lack of belief in a supernatural deity. It is, instead, a deliberate and calculated hostility towards religion and people of faith, in both word and deed.
You might to tell them that they ain't really atheists, along with those folks in California, discussed some time ago, who attend those humanist centers on Sundays to mimick their Christian counterparts' church attendance.
I think I have gone on record for saying I think those things they do are very strange to say the least. I would NEVER be part of that.
-
Secular religion is filled with dogma; that is the real problem, unquestioning adherence to some set of unproven beliefs or principles. Dogma pervades both secular ideologies and religious ones. Atheism is the mere absence of belief in deities and whilst it is true some people choose to organise themselves around their atheism that still doesn't fit the standard definition of atheism. The vast majority of my friends are atheists for example and we never talk about it, much less organise anything around our shared atheism. Dogma, be it Communist, Fascist, Christian or Hindu is dogma. As I said, all these belief systems share a lack of evidence and a lack of demand for rational enquiry.
The same people hold science up as religion.
People like to think that science can explain everything.
Which it can't and which scientific method is strictly against.
The scientific method is the based on finding flaws in what is existing theories.
Almost all of the greatest advancements in science are based in this.
Examples of theories that people and almost all atheists hold as true are evolution, global warming, the big bang, the extinction of dinosaurs.
If someone speaks against them their are now considered crazy, however the basic premise of science holds that they are not true and that a better theory exists.
As for atheists killing an abortion doctor. Maybe you should look at Columbine or Virginia Tech. Atheists do some strange stuff too.
Most of all though murder of this type has more to do with mental illness than religion.
-
The same people hold science up as religion.
People like to think that science can explain everything.
Which it can't and which scientific method is strictly against.
The scientific method is the based on finding flaws in what is existing theories.
Almost all of the greatest advancements in science are based in this.
Examples of theories that people and almost all atheists hold as true are evolution, global warming, the big bang, the extinction of dinosaurs.
If someone speaks against them their are now considered crazy, however the basic premise of science holds that they are not true and that a better theory exists.
As for atheists killing an abortion doctor. Maybe you should look at Columbine or Virginia Tech. Atheists do some strange stuff too.
Most of all though murder of this type has more to do with mental illness than religion.
Do you think it is safe to say that the Garden of Eden, talking snakes and magic apples are probably myths?
-
Do you think it is safe to say that the Garden of Eden, talking snakes and magic apples are probably myths?
I think that they are symbols.
I don't believe that bible is the inerrant word of God.
But I do believe in God.
I like to view science as tool that reveals God's work.
-
A number of atheists do. However, some of the (as I like to call them) Flavors-of-the-Month in the world of atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al.) espouse views and rhetoric that hardly reflect people who simply don't believe there is a God.
Don't really listen to them either.
-
I think that they are symbols.
I don't believe that bible is the inerrant word of God.
But I do believe in God.
I like to view science as tool that reveals God's work.
Which god? Vishnu? Jesus? Zeus? Odin? Quetzalcoatl? Dagda?
-
Which god? Vishnu? Jesus? Zeus? Odin? Quetzalcoatl? Dagda?
Jesus isn't a God.
God is God.
However I don't rule out a single God,with multiple titles, forming multiple religions.
I won't know this until I am dead.
-
Jesus isn't a God.
God is God.
However I don't rule out a single God,with multiple titles, forming multiple religions.
I won't know this until I am dead.
Do you rule out the possibility of no god(s)?
-
Do you rule out the possibility of no god(s)?
That could be a possibility but,
I don't believe it to be true.
Something stared the big bang.
There is some reason I can think and use logic.
There is some reason that we as a species succeed, when we are constantly trying to kill each other.
I believe that God is responsible for this.
Science can't prove that there isn't a God.
That is why I have faith.
However I won't know for sure until I am dead.
-
I agree with this completely, and Straw Man's multiple anti-Christian threads are a great example of it.
If my threads are "anti" anything it would be religious extremist....any religion
you and I have had enough dialogues that I figured you would know that already
-
As i stated earlier there is a point when religious beliefs stop and a persons personal beliefs begin obviously its not a religious belief to go around killing ppl. Sure they are his religious beliefs but they are not religious beliefs if you understand the difference. you cannot use his actions to demonize religion like you want to do.
until you can show that the bible advocates such actions then those actions taken by roeder where not in the name of christianity, they were in the name of his individual beliefs
Tony - your denials are getting tiresome.
Anti-Abortion activists are motivated by their religious beliefs but the guys like Roeder let their beliefs drive them to crazy extremes.
Why the absurd denials of the obvious. There actions have nothing to do with you or the millions of other peaceful christians
This is no different than Muslim extremist and peaceful Muslims. Surely you understand it in that example so why do pretend not to get it when the example has to do with your religion?
Anyone who watches the Randall Terry video that I posted will know that his religious beliefs are the motivating factor in his anti-abortion activism
-
By the way straw man.
That wacko that opened fire at the holocaust memorial was an atheist.
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/antichristian_white_supremacis.html
Idiot dirt bags come in all strips.
-
By the way straw man.
That wacko that opened fire at the holocaust memorial was an atheist.
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/antichristian_white_supremacis.html
Idiot dirt bags come in all strips.
Doh!
-
By the way straw man.
That wacko that opened fire at the holocaust memorial was an atheist.
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/antichristian_white_supremacis.html
Idiot dirt bags come in all strips.
yeah but did he kill because of his atheist belief or was it because of his anti-semitism and bigotry against blacks?
If he was killing people in a church I might think it had something to do with atheism but he was in a holocaust museum
I do agree with you that wacko come in all stripes and from all religious backgrounds (including no religion)
-
yeah but did he kill because of his atheist belief or was it because of his anti-semitism and bigotry against blacks?
If he was killing people in a church I might think it had something to do with atheism but he was in a holocaust museum
I do agree with you that wacko come in all stripes and from all religious backgrounds (including no religion)
I think Christianity played the same level in abortion doctor shooting as atheism played in the Holocaust memorial shooting.
I look at the massive amounts of hatred these 2 guys have and would blame that and the fact they were crazy.
Religious, anti-religious views had little to do with it.
-
I think Christianity played the same level in abortion doctor shooting as atheism played in the Holocaust memorial shooting.
I look at the massive amounts of hatred these 2 guys have and would blame that and the fact they were crazy.
Religious, anti-religious views had little to do with it.
Here's how I see it
Roeder was involved with anti-abortion groups who oppose abortion based on their interpretation of christianity which has decided that they know what life is and when it begins and characterizes abortion as murder (some misguided people on this site do the same thing) and because of these beliefs felt he had to kill a doctor who performs abortions
Von Brunn - was an anti-semite, white supremacist, bigot, and holocaust denier who killed a black man in a holocaust museum.
I think the motivation in both sad cases is pretty obvious
-
Here's how I see it
Roeder was involved with anti-abortion groups who oppose abortion based on their interpretation of christianity which has decided that they know what life is and when it begins and characterizes abortion as murder (some misguided people on this site do the same thing) and because of these beliefs felt he had to kill a doctor who performs abortions
Von Brunn - was an anti-semite, white supremacist, bigot, and holocaust denier who killed a black man in a holocaust museum.
I think the motivation in both sad cases is pretty obvious
Not true.
Scott Roeder has mental problems. And he may have claimed to be a Christian, but he shot another Christian. And his justification for it was not a religious one, but the same secular argument that both secular and religious anti-abortion people use, to defend the right to life of the unborn.
Straw Man, stop obsessing over making this a religious issue. It isn't.
-
Not true.
Scott Roeder has mental problems. And he may have claimed to be a Christian, but he shot another Christian. And his justification for it was not a religious one, but the same secular argument that both secular and religious anti-abortion people use, to defend the right to life of the unborn.
Straw Man, stop obsessing over making this a religious issue. It isn't.
I'm not obsessing over anything
I'm calling it what it is
Roeder was a part of a radicalized christian movement that assumes they know what life is and when it begins. They also assume that Tiller was a mass murderer and some self professed christians on this board have said the same thing. Roeder took it to the next crazy step which was to kill someone he saw as a mass murder to protect unborn babies. This train of thought is right out of the extreme segment of the christian anti aborition movement. All of this is undeniable.
you might want to try stopping the incredible semantic contortions that you use to deny the reality of the situation.
You don't have to condone it (I assume you don't) but you this constant spin that Roeder was just a nut and his religious beliefs did not lead to this action are absurd.
If he was just crazy he would have picked a random person to shoot.
He chose Tiller for a specific reason and that reason was the crazy result of his personal religious beliefs
-
I'm not obsessing over anything
I'm calling it what it is
Roeder was a part of a radicalized christian movement that assumes they know what life is and when it begins. They also assume that Tiller was a mass murderer and some self professed christians on this board have said the same thing. Roeder took it to the next crazy step which was to kill someone he saw as a mass murder to protect unborn babies. This train of thought is right out of the extreme segment of the christian anti aborition movement. All of this is undeniable.
you might want to try stopping the incredible semantic contortions that you use to deny the reality of the situation.
You don't have to condone it (I assume you don't) but you this constant spin that Roeder was just a nut and his religious beliefs did not lead to this action are absurd.
If he was just crazy he would have picked a random person to shoot.
He chose Tiller for a specific reason and that reason was the crazy result of his personal religious beliefs
He is a Christian who lost his mind and shot another Christian, citing secular reasons and because of his mental problems, not because of his Christianity.
The guy from Finland I've posted about was an atheist who lost his mind too and shot 8 people, citing secular reasons too.
Stalin was an atheist who murdered hundreds of thousands of religious people. Those people were specifically targeted by atheists for a specific reason, they were murdered and their property was destroyed only because they were religious.
-
He is a Christian who lost his mind and shot another Christian, citing secular reasons and because of his mental problems, not because of his Christianity.
The guy from Finland I've posted about was an atheist who lost his mind too and shot 8 people, citing secular reasons too.
Stalin was an atheist who murdered hundreds of thousands of religious people. Those people were specifically targeted by atheists for a specific reason, they were murdered and their property was destroyed only because they were religious.
Stalin targeted a lot of groups of people.
Show me an atheist who goes to a church and kills people specifically because they are religious and you might have a point.
Why do you think Roeder decided that he had to kill Tiller. Why didn't he just go to the mall and shoot at random people?
-
Stalin targeted a lot of groups of people.
Show me an atheist who goes to a church and kills people specifically because they are religious and you might have a point.
Why do you think Roeder decided that he had to kill Tiller. Why didn't he just go to the mall and shoot at random people?
Funny how you cry nonstop about this one Christian who shot another Christian, but you are okay with Stalin and make all kinds of excuses for him even though he murdered over a million innocent people.
Like the atheist from Finland, Roeder took it to the extreme because he has mental problems. He targeted an abortion doctor because Roeder is anti-abortion. Any secular anti-abortion nut job is just as capable of doing the same because this case has nothing to do with religion.
-
Funny how you cry nonstop about this one Christian who shot another Christian, but you are okay with Stalin and make all kinds of excuses for him even though he murdered over a million innocent people.
Like the atheist from Finland, Roeder took it to the extreme because he has mental problems. He targeted an abortion doctor because Roeder is anti-abortion. Any secular anti-abortion nut job is just as capable of doing the same because this case has nothing to do with religion.
where did I say I was OK with Stalin killing millions of people. I only disagreed with you that he did it soley from the angle of an atheist trying to wipe out religions. How many more times do you need to hear that.
I'm not aware of any secular anti abortion nutjob or even any secular anti-abortion group (though if you show me one I'll be glad to acknowlege it). To my knowledge all antiabortion groups have some deep grounding in chritian or catholic beliefs. In fact these groups tend to have radical and fundamental religious beliefs that are not even shared with the mainstream of their own religion.
-
where did I say I was OK with Stalin killing millions of people. I only disagreed with you that he did it soley from the angle of an atheist trying to wipe out religions. How many more times do you need to hear that.
I'm not aware of any secular anti abortion nutjob or even any secular anti-abortion group (though if you show me one I'll be glad to acknowlege it). To my knowledge all antiabortion groups have some deep grounding in chritian or catholic beliefs. In fact these groups tend to have radical and fundamental religious beliefs that are not even shared with the mainstream of their own religion.
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were educated atheists, and they killed millions of innocent people. Deal with it!
What? Are you now saying that there are no seculars who are anti-abortion?
-
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were educated atheists, and they killed millions of innocent people. Deal with it!
deal with what? The fact that they were dictators and killed millions of people in order to consolidate their power. ok - I'll deal with that
What? Are you now saying that there are no seculars who are anti-abortion?
I'm saying I'm not aware of any secular anti aborion nutjob (i.e. someone who has committed an act of violence or vandalism). I'm sure there are some non-regligous people who are against abortion.
I'm not aware of any organized anti-abortion group that does not have some religious affiliation but if want to show me one that would be fine.
-
deal with what? The fact that they were dictators and killed millions of people in order to consolidate their power. ok - I'll deal with that
Go ahead and count this one case of a nut job killing an abortion doctor against Christianity. I will count intellectual atheists' murder of millions of innoncent people against atheism. And I'm not the only one.
"The point is that it is dishonest to pretend that the Crusades count against theism but that Stalin doesn’t count against atheism." - H. Allen Orr
I'm saying I'm not aware of any secular anti aborion nutjob (i.e. someone who has committed an act of violence or vandalism). I'm sure there are some non-regligous people who are against abortion.
Though not anti-abortion, Weather Underground Organization(WUO) was a radical left organization which committed acts of domestic terrorism in the US, much worse than anti-abortion nut jobs have done.
And the way things are going right now with the economy and an escalation of random killings, I would not bet you'll never see a secular anti-abortionist going nuts and killing others. No human being is immune to depression and mental illness. Any secular anti-abortionist is just as capable of going nuts and killing an abortion doctor.
I'm not aware of any organized anti-abortion group that does not have some religious affiliation but if want to show me one that would be fine.
There are many secular people and many secular humanists who are anti-abortion. And there are anti-abortion groups with no religious affiliation too:
Nat Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, pro-life advocate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff#Personal_politics
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League(AAPL)
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
The Coalition To Extend Life(C.E.L.)
http://www.coalitiontoextendlife.org/news.php#promoteimmortality
-
Nat Hentoff on Abortion
Nat Hentoff is a prominent civil libertarian, columnist, and author of many books including Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee.
To be liberal and pro-life: Nat Hentoff, champion of 'inconvenient life'
Cathryn Donohoe, The Washington Times, November 6, 1989
Until 1984, he had not given much thought to abortion, he says. He had accepted the view of all the women he knew, including his wife, that the right to an abortion is part of a woman's fundamental right to privacy, one that allows her control over her body and, by extension, her life. Then came the case of Baby Jane Doe. She was a Long Island infant born with spina bifida (a condition in which the spinal cord is unprotected because the spinal column does not close properly ...
The Indivisible Fight for Life
Nat Hentoff describes how the right to life is inseperable from other issues such as poverty and the death penalty.
The Specter Of Pro-Choice Eugenics
Nat Hentoff, The Washington Post, May 25, 1991
Pro-choice forces are so intent on removing all obstacles to abortion that eugenics is no specter to them.
Civil Rights And Anti-Abortion Protests
Nat Hentoff, The Washington Post
February 6, 1989
The Right-to-Life movement as a civil rights movement
Pro-lifers are more like the civil rights workers of the 19th century, the Abolitionists, who would not be deterred from their goal of ensuring equal rights for all human beings in this land. They believed, as these civil rights leaders later did, that social change comes only after social upheaval.
Yes, There Are Pro-Life Feminists
Nat Hentoff, The Washington Post, October 29, 1994
For years, women who identify themselves as pro-choice have told me with absolute assurance that it is impossible for a woman to be both pro-life and a feminist. Yet, in various parts of the country, I keep meeting women who indeed are both.
The censoring of feminist history
Nat Hentoff, March 27, 2000
Nat Hentoff describes how the pro-life roots of Feminism have been covered up.
Beyond the 'rehearsed response'
Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice, January 30, 1996
Nat Hentoff on the beginning of life.
Can a Nonperson Be a Victim?
Nat Hentoff, The Washington Post, March 27, 1993
Ana Rosa Rodriguez was born without a right arm. Actually, she was not supposed to have been born. Her mother, 19-year-old Rosa Rodriguez, 7 1/2 months pregnant, had gone to Dr. Abu Hayat on New York's Lower East Side for an abortion. It was botched; Ana Rosa was born the day after... The doctor's attorney's argument is that, according to Roe v. Wade, a fetus is not a person. And under New York state criminal law, unless a person is assaulted, no crime has been committed.
Pro-choice bigots: a view from the pro-life left.
Nat Hentoff, November 30, 1992
Men, women, and teenagers wrote from all over the country that they had thought themselves to be solitary pro-lifers in the office, at school, even at home. They were surprised to find that there was someone else who was against capital punishment, against Reagan and Bush, and dismayed at the annual killing of 1.6 million developing human beings.
Stereotyping Pro-Lifers
Nat Hentoff, The Washington Post, May 16, 1992
The press has a bent toward stereotyping pro-lifers. Accordingly, many readers and viewers have a decidedly limited sense of the diversity of pro-lifers.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/hentoff.html
-
Go ahead and count this one case of a nut job killing an abortion doctor against Christianity. I will count intellectual atheists' murder of millions of innoncent people against atheism. And I'm not the only one.
"The point is that it is dishonest to pretend that the Crusades count against theism but that Stalin doesn’t count against atheism." - H. Allen Orr
Stalin was also killing teachers too. Was he against education?
Though not anti-abortion, Weather Underground Organization(WUO) was a radical left organization which committed acts of domestic terrorism in the US, much worse than anti-abortion nut jobs have done.
yep - those guys were left wing domestic terrorist too. I can't remember how many people they killed or maimed. Maybe you know.
And the way things are going right now with the economy and an escalation of random killings, I would not bet you'll never see a secular anti-abortionist going nuts and killing others. No human being is immune to depression and mental illness. Any secular anti-abortionist is just as capable of going nuts and killing an abortion doctor.
There are many secular people and many secular humanists who are anti-abortion. And there are anti-abortion groups with no religious affiliation too:
Nat Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, pro-life advocate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff#Personal_politics
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League(AAPL)
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
The Coalition To Extend Life(C.E.L.)
http://www.coalitiontoextendlife.org/news.php#promoteimmortality
thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
Do you know if anyone from these groups have committed acts of vandalism and violence.
If not, do you have any speculation on why the violence and vandalism comes only from the religous groups?
Do you think the religious groups attract the prolifers who are prone to be crazy or do you think the religious groups extreme rhetoric might be pushing certain people over the edge.
-
Stalin was also killing teachers too. Was he against education?
yep - those guys were left wing domestic terrorist too. I can't remember how many people they killed or maimed. Maybe you know.
thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
Do you know if anyone from these groups have committed acts of vandalism and violence.
If not, do you have any speculation on why the violence and vandalism comes only from the religous groups?
Do you think the religious groups attrack the crazy prolifers or do you think the religious groups extreme rhetoric might be pushing certain people over the edge.
All petty arguments that at this point only show you are an intolerant, and as Beach Bum says, paranoid anti-religion extremist.
Historically, atheists are more dangerous and deadly than Christians.
-
There are many secular people and many secular humanists who are anti-abortion. And there are anti-abortion groups with no religious affiliation too:
Nat Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, pro-life advocate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff#Personal_politics
one guy - not a group and his activism seems limited to writing articles
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League(AAPL)
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
this appears to be only one guy and he even laments on this website that he even writers that he thinks he might be the only anti-religious person who is against abortion. His site has not been updated since January 2007
The Coalition To Extend Life(C.E.L.)
http://www.coalitiontoextendlife.org/news.php#promoteimmortality
I'm not sure anti-abortion is the primary goal of this crowd.
from there website:
C.E.L. intends to actively promote indefinite life extension and human immortality as a public policy goal of the United States. We intend to win a war on aging by learning how to achieve immortality.
-
All petty arguments that at this point only show you are an intolerant, and as Beach Bum says, paranoid anti-religion extremist.
Historically, atheists are more dangerous and deadly than Christians.
lame way to ignore answering questions that might show your arguments are wrong
In what way am I an extremist or paranoid. Show me some examples?
-
All petty arguments that at this point only show you are an intolerant, and as Beach Bum says, paranoid anti-religion extremist.
Historically, atheists are more dangerous and deadly than Christians.
historically power crazy dictators have been pretty dangerous. The Catholic Church was pretty bad too.
Today I don't think atheist or even Christians are that dangerous at all (at least not the ones I know).
My only problem is when a person's religious beliefs compels them to commit acts of violence
I have the same problem with racists who take their beliefs to the point of violence
The same goes for anyone else
Other than that I couldn't give less of a shit what anyone wants to believe
pretty "extreme and paranoid" huh?