People never learn

Blinkus

History reveals that, whenever a minority group of people are deemed exploitable or inconvenient, the majority convince themselves they are not people, but something else, property in the case of the blacks, subhuman parasites, in the case of the Jews, and 'just a bunch of cells' in the case of the unborn. Which followed with, 'if they're not people, we can do whatever we like with them' ...

(All three having that factor in common, should arouse suspicions for the pro-choicer)

Note also, how elaborate arguments, combined with classic sophistry allowed all these things to happen, even if it happened before. When it comes to convenience, people it seems, are very quick to put intellectual honesty - truth aside.

Peter Kreeft says..

One of the things I fear from this is an ugly backlash against homosexuals. If the truth is now whatever we will, then just as there is nothing to stop society today from redefining marriage, there is nothing to stop it tomorrow from redefining personal dignity and rights so as to take them away from homosexuals. The Nazis did exactly that. The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God's image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be saints, and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes--so when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves sexually, but when others sin against them she says NO also. No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals.

The idea that whatever society dictates is true, to suit the times, and the peoples lifestyles will one day work against any minority group. If there is ever a time in the future, where for some reason, something is unpopular or seen as dangerous, the ever popular relativistic culture could well turn against them. Whatever excuse the majority will come up with, the same cycle will continue, as in the past , some minority group will be targeted, and don't be surprised if its one day us Chrsitians, as sacred scripture tells us, will happen.

There is no question. I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

PDN

Blinkus wrote: »

History reveals that, whenever a minority group of people are deemed exploitable or inconvenient, the majority convince themselves they are not people, but something else, property in the case of the blacks, subhuman parasites, in the case of the Jews, and 'just a bunch of cells' in the case of the unborn. Which followed with, 'if they're not people, we can do whatever we like with them' ...

(All three having that factor in common, should arouse suspicions for the pro-choicer)

Note also, how elaborate arguments, combined with classic sophistry allowed all these things to happen, even if it happened before. When it comes to convenience, people it seems, are very quick to put intellectual honesty - truth aside.

Peter Kreeft says..



The idea that whatever society dictates is true, to suit the times, and the peoples lifestyles will one day work against any minority group. If there is ever a time in the future, where for some reason, something is unpopular or seen as dangerous, the ever popular relativistic culture could well turn against them. Whatever excuse the majority will come up with, the same cycle will continue, as in the past , some minority group will be targeted, and don't be surprised if its one day us Chrsitians, as sacred scripture tells us, will happen.

There is no question. I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

Moderator's Note
While the OP has used homosexuality as an example, I would ask that any discussion of homosexuality be taken to the Gay Megathread.

However, we'll leave this thread open too for general discussion about how the dehumanising language addressed at minority groups paves the way for atrocities.

(Speaking as a poster, rather than as a Mod, at present IMHO, the group in Western society that would be most at risk in this regard would be Muslims.)

Blinkus

PDN wrote: »

Moderator's Note
While the OP has used homosexuality as an example, I would ask that any discussion of homosexuality be taken to the Gay Megathread.

However, we'll leave this thread open too for general discussion about how the dehumanising language addressed at minority groups paves the way for atrocities.

(Speaking as a poster, rather than as a Mod, at present IMHO, the group in Western society that would be most at risk in this regard would be Muslims.)

I fear you may be right. Muslims are at serious risk from this, since most don't bother to educate themselves in the Muslim faith. Instead they read rhetoric emerging from New atheist literature, which happens to be drenched in ignorance and therefore, bigotry.

The intellectual dishonesty of the pro-choicer in today's world, is exposed as a position held, purely out of motivations for comfort, the easy life. Since no pro-choicer would defend the black salve trade for example. Why would they? Since they weren't around in those days, to benefit from their exploitation. It sickens me how these moral tragedies still continue, people still refuse to acknowledge what they are, because they are blinded by the comfortable life it brings with it. Fuelled by Egotism, under the guise of empowerment and 'rights'.

To carry this to its full conclusion: The pro-choicer if being honest, has to be supportive of the black slave trade, and the holocaust. Since in principal, they are the same: A weaker, defenceless minority population is exploited for the sake of the majority, out of base interests, based on the idea that the targets are not people.

AtomicHorror

Two of the examples you cite (homosexuality and abortion) illustrate how society is assimilating new knowledge and shifting values in response. We may argue over the validity of that knowledge, but the knowledge is being brought forward in a methodical way that is subject to scrutiny. It's never correct to say that something is right merely because the majority hold it to be so, but conversely we can't merely point to argument from majority to dismiss a prevailing opinion if we haven't examined how opinion leaders came to hold their views. Is there an element of argumentum ad populum informing our values on homosexuality and abortion? Sure, but the origin of the proposed shifts in values is very different in quality to the propaganda wheeled out by the Nazis. It's not very honest to equate the two.

I think the real problem for many religious people is the concept that values can shift at all. I think it makes many people uncomfortable, because it's complicated and messy. To me it seems obvious that, since our knowledge is not absolute, since it is always tending towards- though perhaps never reaching- completion, similarly our values can never be absolute. We must adjust as we learn.

We'll never agree on that, because you believe that values and the morals that extend from them are absolutes laid down by an infallible mind and written in a guide book. I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to accept that.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

(Speaking as a poster, rather than as a Mod, at present IMHO, the group in Western society that would be most at risk in this regard would be Muslims.)

They're somewhat better armed than most other "minorities" and are quite taken with violence if they come across something they don't like - currently that's freedom of speech - so can't really agree with you there.

JimiTime

Festus wrote: »

They're somewhat better armed than most other "minorities" and are quite taken with violence if they come across something they don't like - currently that's freedom of speech - so can't really agree with you there.

'They'? You mean like them Christians who protest soldiers funerals, and tell everyone that 'God hates fags' etc? Yeah, Christians are terrible for that!
I don't know if you know any muslims, but I've known quite a lot, and only a couple of them have matched the stereotype of violent, hate-filled murderous mob member. And that was more politics than religion.
You are a member of a religion that has had scandal after scandal in terms of priests etc sexually abusing and raping children. How does it make you feel when someone turns this into a stereotype of your religion or associates YOU with these atrocious acts?
What about the Muslims in Egypt who stood together in front of a coptic Christian church to stop a mob of other muslims vandalising it? Or the stories I could share with you about friends of mine driving across Iran and been taken in for nights on end and fed, and made feel wholly welcome by muslim strangers when their car broke down. This Included them organising a special night for these Irish strangers to make them feel welcome. Ok, so it was a 'Chris De Burgh Live' DVD (No joke:) ), but its the thought that counts:)

There are so many lazy minded atheists out there who just love to stereotype Christians, or the religious in general. It really should make us realise, that we should be vigilant against such lazy mindedness ourselves.

Gumbi

Can you back up your assertion regarding the equation of pro-choicers and support of a black slave trade? My rationale for abortion is not based on your assertion and so I can consistently be pro-choice (with certain restrictions) and anti-slavery.

AtomicHorror

Blinkus wrote: »

To carry this to its full conclusion: The pro-choicer if being honest, has to be supportive of the black slave trade, and the holocaust. Since in principal, they are the same: A weaker, defenceless minority population is exploited for the sake of the majority, out of base interests, based on the idea that the targets are not people.

It's just awful, awful logic. I don't know how you can possibly think this makes sense, even excusing your dogmatic mind.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

They're somewhat better armed than most other "minorities" and are quite taken with violence if they come across something they don't like - currently that's freedom of speech - so can't really agree with you there.

I know a number of Irish Muslims, none of them are well-armed, and I've found them to be more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

Unfortunately your rather ignorant stereotyping is the kind of thing that places such people at risk.

Zombrex

Blinkus wrote: »

To carry this to its full conclusion: The pro-choicer if being honest, has to be supportive of the black slave trade, and the holocaust. Since in principal, they are the same: A weaker, defenceless minority population is exploited for the sake of the majority, out of base interests, based on the idea that the targets are not people.

By that logic anyone who has ever made a decision about what is or isn't "people" must support the slave trade and holocaust, which includes pro-lifers who decide that things like sperm and rocks and microwaves are not people either.

BTW there is another thread if you want to argue why sperm and rocks and microwave are not people. The point is the faulty logic of your conclusion, not whether pro-life or pro-choice is the correct position.

Lantus

well black slavery was orchestrated by the dominant religous groups of the time in the developing americas who passed laws decreeing it ok to have slaves as long as they were non christian.

In nazi germany there was overwhelmingly a christian believe in 95% of the population and leadership. The church in germany supported nazism and maintained that it was in accordance with all christian teachings.


So what does this tell us? That human behaviour is guided and shaped by the thoughts and teachings at the time. If you had been brought up in nazi germany you would of been a christian that agreed with the leadership as to their actions which most likely would of included the actions against the jews. The value sysems in other ountries are different which is why so many difficulties arise in understanding and communicating with other people. It wouldn't of made you a bad person, just different. In contrast you would probably of viewed people living in uk, ireland and usa to be ungodly, evil and in need of conquering and 'civilising' (whatever that means)

So all of these ideas are really just perspectives that depend on what you have been brought up to believe.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

I know a number of Irish Muslims, none of them are well-armed, and I've found them to be more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

Unfortunately your rather ignorant stereotyping is the kind of thing that places such people at risk.

It's not stereotyping. Muslims, or people calling themselves Muslims, recently killed an ambassador and a significant number of others simply because somoeone exercised his right to free speech. It would appear that tolerance is not high on their agenda.

Or the right to free speech for that matter.

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

'They'? You mean like them Christians who protest soldiers funerals, and tell everyone that 'God hates fags' etc? Yeah, Christians are terrible for that!
I don't know if you know any muslims, but I've known quite a lot, and only a couple of them have matched the stereotype of violent, hate-filled murderous mob member. And that was more politics than religion.
You are a member of a religion that has had scandal after scandal in terms of priests etc sexually abusing and raping children. How does it make you feel when someone turns this into a stereotype of your religion or associates YOU with these atrocious acts?
What about the Muslims in Egypt who stood together in front of a coptic Christian church to stop a mob of other muslims vandalising it? Or the stories I could share with you about friends of mine driving across Iran and been taken in for nights on end and fed, and made feel wholly welcome by muslim strangers when their car broke down. This Included them organising a special night for these Irish strangers to make them feel welcome. Ok, so it was a 'Chris De Burgh Live' DVD (No joke:) ), but its the thought that counts:)

There are so many lazy minded atheists out there who just love to stereotype Christians, or the religious in general. It really should make us realise, that we should be vigilant against such lazy mindedness ourselves.

I'm not certain that God is a smoker but I would be pretty confident that Allah is not too fond of homosexuals, practicing or otherwise. Also if you seek out the real news you will become aware of the persecution Christians are undergoing at the hands of Muslims in Islamic states.

Of course any where they are in a minority they will overtly behave themselves and no doubt there are many who are not violent by any means. We are all human after all and we know right from wrong.

The point is we have the President of the United States of America making it clear to the world that we must be tolerant of Muslims and their beliefs even if that means compromising the right to freedom of speech. That being the case it is highly unlikely that Muslims anywhere are going to be subjected to what the Jews experienced at the hands of the Nazis.

Contrary to what PDN belives are the next minority to be targeted it will not be the Muslims. Most likely it will be the Catholics first and then anyone else who opposes gay marriage and abortion, and so on until you are left with "Christians" who are really atheist or agnostic and the Muslims who will persecute the "Christians" for being homophilic baby killers.

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

I know a number of Irish Muslims, none of them are well-armed, and I've found them to be more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

Unfortunately your rather ignorant stereotyping is the kind of thing that places such people at risk.

It's not stereotyping. Muslims, or people calling themselves Muslims, recently killed an ambassador and a significant number of others simply because somoeone exercised his right to free speech. It would appear that tolerance is not high on their agenda.

Or the right to free speech for that matter.

So 1.6 billion Muslims have to carry the can for that? If that isn't stereotyping I don't know what is, following that logic, you can't complain about anyone stereotyping Christians based on the actions of a Christian extremist.

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

The point is we have the President of the United States of America making it clear to the world that we must be tolerant of Muslims and their beliefs even if that means compromising the right to freedom of speech. That being the case it is highly unlikely that Muslims anywhere are going to be subjected to what the Jews experienced at the hands of the Nazis.

Obama didn't call for freedom of speech to be compromised, he condemned the video. And rightly so, just to be clear, an Egyptian Copt, with a record of fanaticism, produced a video defaming Muslims. He was such a coward about it that he invented a fictitious persona for himself and falsely claimed that it was financed by Jewish investors. I can respect freedom of speech, I don't have to respect the way people use it. That isn't to excuse the disgraceful acts of violence, but we are all responsible for what we say.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

So 1.6 billion Muslims have to carry the can for that? If that isn't stereotyping I don't know what is, following that logic, you can't complain about anyone stereotyping Christians based on the actions of a Christian extremist.

Wouldn't it be better for world leaders to condemn the attacks and murders and call those who are doing that what they are - Murderers - instead of hounding a film maker?

The real question here is why those Muslims involved in this violent response to an excercise in free speech are being allowed get away with it.

BTW Catholics have been sterotyped because of mis information about the Crusades and the recent pederasty scandals. Nothing new for us, we're used to it.

ehcocmeo

In July Germany introduced a new Prenatal blood test for Down’s syndrome.

This test serves only one purpose – to abort children and Resurrect European Eugenics.

Its 1930's Germany back again, when those who were not perfect were killed.


Reality is that abortion panders to the lowest elements of human nature, instead of love a sacrifice for your child is about "me" and "my" choice and what "I" think is right.

Everyone should be respected.. Black-White/ Gay/Straight/ Healthy/Sick, Man/Woman, Child/Adult from conception to death.

Sadly man never learns and minorities are will discriminated against. Esp the disabled.

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better for world leaders to condemn the attacks and murders and call those who are doing that what they are - Murderers - instead of hounding a film maker?

I'm pretty sure world leaders did condemn the attacks. The film director (if you can call him that) was hardly hounded, in fact he was given police protection.

Festus wrote: »

The real question here is why those Muslims involved in this violent response to an excercise in free speech are being allowed get away with it.

BTW Catholics have been sterotyped because of mis information about the Crusades and the recent pederasty scandals. Nothing new for us, we're used to it.

I'm not sure if they are being allowed to get away with it, but if so, that's a question for the Libyan government rather than all Muslims. Stereotyping Catholics is wrong, I don't see how stereotyping Muslims is any different.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Obama didn't call for freedom of speech to be compromised, he condemned the video.

Why didn't he condemn the murderers?

By condemning the movie and it's makers and not condemning those who murdered US diplomatic staff, the US president who took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, is compromising the right to free speech.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm pretty sure world leaders did condemn the attacks. The film director (if you can call him that) was hardly hounded, in fact he was given police protection.

Pretty sure or do you have links?

The movie was produced in America under the First Amendment so why did the US president condemn someone who was only exercising his right to free speech.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm not sure if they are being allowed to get away with it, but if so, that's a question for the Libyan government rather than all Muslims. Stereotyping Catholics is wrong, I don't see how stereotyping Muslims is any different.

I don't see anyone condemning these murderous thugs. Condemning the violent perhaps but not the murderers themselves. Also, it is now an issue that goes beyond Libya. 19 murders in Pakistan today. It sure looks like they are being allowed get away with it. Will we see people being arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned or executed for these murders? I doubt it.

As for Muslims being stereotyped, is that not a function of how they are being portrayed on the evening news?

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

Pretty sure or do you have links?

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

Source.

More reactions to the murders here.

There was also a demonstration in Benghazi against the killings (Ambassador Stevens was something of a hero to most Libyans):



Again, it's possible to defend someone's right to exercise free speech while deploring the use they make of it.

Festus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Source.

More reactions to the murders here.

There was also a demonstration in Benghazi against the killings (Ambassador Stevens was something of a hero to most Libyans):


Again, it's possible to defend someone's right to exercise free speech while deploring the use they make of it.

What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the murderous thugs who carried it out.
What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the intolerance that led to it.
What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the lack of political correctness in Islamic states.
What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the lack of a sense of humour in Islamic states.

What I do not see here is the makers of movies and TV programs that insult, denigrate and otherwise present anti Christian or anti Catholic sentiment produced under the protections of the 1st amendnent being equally condemned as this movie is.

Nor do I have any recollection of violent and murderous protests against UK diplomatic missions when "The Life of Brian" was released. Or "The Da Vinci Code". Go figure.

The response of those murderers to this movie is as disproportionate as the politcal response has been.

Wake up and smell the coffee - US Citizens are killed and the response is to blame the movie maker and not the mob who carried out the killngs. What does that tell you about the most powerful administration in the world

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/09/21/pathetic-obama-admin-airs-ad-in-pakistan-condeming-innocence-of-muslims/



http://rashmanly.com/2008/06/05/4550/

totus tuus

lmaopml

Festus wrote: »

What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the murderous thugs who carried it out.
What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the intolerance that led to it.
What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the lack of political correctness in Islamic states.
What I see here is the attacks being condemned, not the lack of a sense of humour in Islamic states.

What I do not see here is the makers of movies and TV programs that insult, denigrate and otherwise present anti Christian or anti Catholic sentiment produced under the protections of the 1st amendnent being equally condemned as this movie is.

Nor do I have any recollection of violent and murderous protests against UK diplomatic missions when "The Life of Brian" was released. Or "The Da Vinci Code". Go figure.

The response of those murderers to this movie is as disproportionate as the politcal response has been.

Wake up and smell the coffee - US Citizens are killed and the response is to blame the movie maker and not the mob who carried out the killngs. What does that tell you about the most powerful administration in the world

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/09/21/pathetic-obama-admin-airs-ad-in-pakistan-condeming-innocence-of-muslims/



http://rashmanly.com/2008/06/05/4550/

What you see and what is 'condemned' is never a reason to incite hatred for others. Terrible things are happening all over the globe to mere 'people' no matter whom - and that's the problem that every single Soldier of Christ is involved in, whether we feel burdened or no.

It's true that we treat Christ with contempt here sometimes and let him down badly, and fear others, but it's also true that we reach out, and live our lives for him and in him, very many many do - a sacrifice that testifies, a peaceful testimony - there are so many unsung heroes..that don't get a look in, but they're there all the same.

What you see and what is 'condemned' is the way things have been - time to be better than that, we can be too! He said it, he died on the Cross because he knew it..it's not about what 'people' think about you, it's about what 'you' know about you and the walk with him.

You only see uprisings where people feel persecuted - those who are, or feel persecuted are best served by dialogue around a table, and when greed enters she needs to be kicked out on her ass and only dialogue will highlight her for what she is - she hates it.

totus tuus

If this were to happen to the Koran, there would be bedlam! :rolleyes:

As indicated in my previous post/image, it's just 'art! :mad:

An infamous anti-Christian photograph titled “Piss Christ,” showing a small plastic crucifix soaked in the artist’s urine, will go on display in Manhattan’s Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery on Thursday, The New York Post reports.

Gumbi

totus tuus wrote: »

If this were to happen to the Koran, there would be bedlam! :rolleyes:

As indicated in my previous post/image, it's just 'art! :mad:

An infamous anti-Christian photograph titled “Piss Christ,” showing a small plastic crucifix soaked in the artist’s urine, will go on display in Manhattan’s Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery on Thursday, The New York Post reports.

Do you think there should be bedlam?

totus tuus

Gumbi wrote: »

Do you think there should be bedlam?

Certainly not!

Although I think the same respect should be afforded to Christian Beliefs as is shown to Islam!

AtomicHorror

totus tuus wrote: »

Certainly not!

Although I think the same respect should be afforded to Christian Beliefs as is shown to Islam!

Why? People should be respected. Ideas should be poked and prodded and teased apart and then binned if they're found lacking. Ideas about life and death are the most important ideas of all and deserve the closest scrutiny.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why? People should be respected. Ideas should be poked and prodded and teased apart and then binned if they're found lacking. Ideas about life and death are the most important ideas of all and deserve the closest scrutiny.

Except that there is a world of difference between 'poking and prodding at ideas' and deliberately trying to offend people for no other reason than in order to be a jerk.

The 'artist' who produced 'Piss Christ' is on a par with the nutjob pastor in Florida who announced he would burn the Koran. Both are mediocre and pathetic individuals who found a way to get some cheap publicity. A civilised society would ignore both of them and deny them the attention they crave.

Gumbi

Right.... So the Westboro Baptists' Church should also be respected?

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Except that there is a world of difference between 'poking and prodding at ideas' and deliberately trying to offend people for no other reason than in order to be a jerk.

The 'artist' who produced 'Piss Christ' is on a par with the nutjob pastor in Florida who announced he would burn the Koran. Both are mediocre and pathetic individuals who found a way to get some cheap publicity. A civilised society would ignore both of them and deny them the attention they crave.

wow ! assume much ?