Author Topic: Past Student  (Read 5290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2005, 02:32:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-07-17 10:17:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Funny, after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Federal building I don't remember reading too many articles about 'A Christian Problem'. Fundamentalism is on the rise across the globe, unfortunately. It's a WORLDWIDE problem, not a muslim problem. "


Look sometime at the areas across the globe where majority muslim areas and non-majority muslim areas meet.

There's a reason some experts talk about "Islam's bloody borders."

Christianity has *sometimes* spread by persuasion.  Even frequently.  I'm not a Christian, but I'll give them that.  Judaism doesn't encourage conversions.  Buddhism has rarely spread by the sword.  Taoism is incompatible with spread by the sword in the first place.  Hinduism has some bloody internecine conflict but not so much of actual spread by the sword.  Shintoism at its worst was more xenophobic than anything else.

Have you ever actually *read* the Koran?

I have.  Islam has a problem.  Every religion is different.  Islam's founder thought it was a sacred duty to kill all the people who thought he was insane when, at 41, he came out of a cave saying an angel was talking to him.  He ran away to Medina because his neighbors in Mecca thought he was a dangerous psycho and tried to kill him--or he thought they were trying to.  Their side of the story hasn't survived into history, so we don't know how much of that was a paranoid delusion.

Mohammed was one of those rare functional and charismatic psychotic people.  He took his followers from Medina back to his hometown of Mecca and killed everyone from his hometown who wouldn't agree with him, at swordpoint, that he *was* talking to an angel and that he *wasn't* psychotic.

Gautama's and Jesus' and Moses' relatively nonviolent natures set their stamp on the religions that followed them.  Okay, Moses reportedly killed somebody, but arguably it was not premeditated and shocked him deeply.

Mohammed was a vicious, bloody killer.  He mostly got his stooges to do his dirty work, but he was murderous, psychotic, and had "short eyes."  His nature set an indelible seal on the religion he founded.  He, or those immediately following him, were also terribly rigid, and set his "teachings" in stone so they couldn't mature and change.

The only reason Islam is a major world religion is because when you kill people if they don't convert, and you kill them if they recant after conversion, and they're too afraid to tell their children the truth--that they don't believe this shit for a minute, and you control the raising of their children so that their children actually *are* true believers, you can (obviously) make a certain amount of mileage in the world.

Islam's problem with continuing to expand is that the rest of the world didn't stay stuck back in the sixth century, particularly in the military sciences.

But Mohammed started off, way back in the sixth century, as a very bad loser.  He's set his mark on those who came after him.

But I can pity those poor schmucks all those centuries ago who converted to stay alive, at the price that their descendents are still brainwashed into living a psychotic's nightmare.

The only "good" features of Islam as a world religion are the ones it borrowed from Christianity and Judaism to start with.  Probably because of his mental illness, Mohammed was a great poet, but a lousy philosopher.

Timoclea
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2005, 03:27:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-07-17 09:19:00, bandit1978 wrote:

"T-  I'm sorry to hear about your leg.  What happened?  "


I tripped and fell down the stairs.  Second time I've gotten really hurt on those.

Our house is about 30 years old.  The building codes have changed.  The stair treads are about eight inches deep, instead of the twelve the current building codes require.  And I'm a klutz.  I get distracted or upset and forget to pay attention to keeping my feet under me.

So we're replacing the stairs down to the garage.  

Broken leg bone, torn ligaments, a plate and lots of screws, 12 weeks with no weight on the thing.

Timoclea
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2005, 04:34:00 PM »
And how is that any better/different than the christian right's interpretation of Manifest Destiny?
How would any of these relidious zealots prove that god is avtually talking to them?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Past Student
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2005, 05:00:00 PM »
Yeah, no kidding. How many times have you heard something to the effect "Well, ya' don't see Christians blowing up buildings!" as an excuse for shaking down the Aryan, brown. I've actually yelled at the TV before "No? Ask a Shawnee or a Blackfoot about Manifest Destiny... oh yeah, ya' can't cause they're fucking nearly all dead!"

As de dawg chases his tail, when will people start to realize that we're more similar to than different from each other, and none of us as noble as most dogs?

I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.  
-- Hunter S. Thompson



_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed Chicklett `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2005, 06:12:00 PM »
A little ironic... what just came to my mailbox. Or is it 'god' speaking through/to me????

Psa 2:7  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psa 2:9  Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10  Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11  Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12  Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2005, 07:50:00 PM »
Sorry  Bandit, but the Constitution is not plastic and it's probably the best damn thing we've got going for us, and you may "whatever" our second amendment rights, but come down to it, that's what's really keeping us from a police state.  I swear now that I'm an adult, if anyone ever comes to lock me up again, they're gonna get an assfullalead!



Her Green plastic watering can
For her fake Chinese rubber plant
In fake plastic earth.
That she bought from a rubber man
In a town full of rubber plans.
Just to get rid of itself.
And It Wears Her Out, it wears her out
It wears her out, it wears her out.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2005, 08:50:00 PM »
The most important thing about the Constitution, to me, is that three fourths of the US agreed to it.  Actually, ratification by the states was eventually unanimous, iirc.

Yes, it sucked that a lot of people couldn't vote at the time.  It was a big damned improvement over everything else contemporaneous with it except Switzerland.

It's important that a country have some roots that can't be changed by the whim of a transient simple majority.  That's what the Constitution is for.

The people who wanted it the way it is already got a three fourths majority, minimum, to agree it ought to be that way.

If you want to change it, you have to get just as big a majority to change it to *prove* to the country then and for posterity that you weren't just a transient, simple majority making a mistake, but were as big a majority of the country as the one that originally put it in place.

And the Constitution has been changed relatively recently when we added the succession clause in case the President and a bunch of other high officials died suddenly, and when we put term limits on the President.  And when we put limits on the procedures for pay raises for Congress.

If you can't get a super-majority to *vote* to change the Constitution, how do you expect to fight and win a revolution?  Especially when the military and just about all the private citizens who own guns disagree with you?

You don't know the military.  Even if somehow you managed to get them *ordered* to attack on your side, they all took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution (not the President, Congress, Courts, or government) from all enemies foreign and domestic.  If ordered to fight on behalf of your revolution, they'd treat it as a manifestly illegal order and under the Nuremberg precedents would take it as their absolute duty to fight against your side.

That said, I can understand your frustration, because it's hard to watch the country doing things that you deeply believe are wrong.

For the record, my cousins on the Trail of Tears certainly had their own opinions of Manifest Destiny, which I share.  I don't so much blame that on religion as on simple greed and racism.  Terrible things have been done throughout history and no nation's family tree is clean.

Islam's problem is that it's *still* having some very bad things caused by the psycho-roots of Mohammed being a seriously murderous nut.

Timoclea
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2005, 09:51:00 PM »
Victims of the christian faith:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

Didn't Falwell (or Robertson) claim that 911 was his christian god's punishment for supporting abortion? Or some such crap?

This Korean Methodist minister says that god killed the tsunami victims because they were heathens:
http://blog.marmot.cc/archives/2005/01/ ... -heathens/

Lordy, lordy, could the list go on..... I think these should count as christian victims too, if they claim responsibility.

And this, doesn't sound much different than criticisms of the koran, except 'sex with virgin maidens' (or whatever it was) is only mentioned indirectly- 'a happiness far beyond anything in this life':

So why would God allow His own adopted children (Christians) to die in some of the larger scale incidents?  We don't know all the reasons because God's thinking is so far beyond ours.  But we have one good possibility to consider.  While our secular society tends to view death as a horrible thing, God sees the death of His saints in a much different light.  Consider these Bible verses:

Precious in the sight of the LORD [is] the death of his saints. Psalms 116:15

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed [are] the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. Revelation 14:13

Upon death, His saints are with Him for all of eternity.  They are now free from pain and suffering forever.  They now know a happiness that is far beyond anything imaginable in this life.
****

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or arguementative. I genuinely can not discern any difference between religious zealots on either side. And Bushy boy doesn't strike me as playing with a full deck himself, but then I've heard it is sometimes hard to distinquish between ignorance and 'mental illness'.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2005, 10:41:00 PM »
THE FOUNDING SACHEMS
By Charles C. Mann
New York Times
July 4, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/opinion/04mann.html

AMHERST, MASS. - Seeking to understand this nation's democratic spirit, Alexis de Tocqueville journeyed to the famous centers of American liberty (Boston, Philadelphia, Washington), stoically enduring their "infernal" accommodations, food and roads and chatting up almost everyone he saw.

He even marched in a Fourth of July parade in Albany just ahead of a big float that featured a flag-waving Goddess of Liberty, a bust of Benjamin Franklin, and a printing press
that spewed out copies of the Declaration of Independence for the cheering crowd. But for all his wit and intellect, Tocqueville never realized that he came closest to his goal just three days after the parade, when he stopped at the "rather unhealthy but thickly peopled" area around Syracuse.

Tocqueville's fascination with the democratic spirit was prescient. Expressed politically in Americans' insistence on limited government and culturally in their long-standing disdain for elites, that spirit has become one of this
country's great gifts to the world.

When rich London and Paris stockbrokers proudly retain their working-class accents, when audiences show up at La Scala in track suits and sneakers, when South Africans and Thais complain that the police don't read suspects their rights the way they do on "Starsky & Hutch," when anti-government protesters in Beirut sing "We Shall Overcome" in Lebanese accents - all these raspberries in the face of social and legal authority have a distinctly American tone. Or, perhaps, a distinctly Native American tone, for among its wellsprings is American Indian culture, especially that of the Iroquois.

The Iroquois confederation, known to its members as the Haudenosaunee, was probably the greatest indigenous polity north of the Rio Grande in the two centuries before Columbus and definitely the greatest in the two centuries after. A political and military alliance formed by the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk and, after about 1720, the Tuscarora, it dominated, at its height, an area from Kentucky to Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain. Its capital was Onondaga, a bustling small city of several thousand souls a few miles
south of where Tocqueville stopped in modern Syracuse.

The Iroquois confederation was governed by a constitution, the Great Law of Peace, which established the league's Great Council: 50 male royaneh (religious-political leaders), each
representing one of the female-led clans of the alliance's nations. What was striking to the contemporary eye was that the 117 codicils of the Great Law were concerned as much with
constraining the Great Council as with granting it authority. "Their whole civil policy was averse to the concentration of power in the hands of any single individual," explained Lewis
Henry Morgan, a pioneering ethnographer of the Iroquois.

The council's jurisdiction was limited to relations among the nations and outside groups; internal affairs were the province of the individual nations. Even in the council's narrow
domain, the Great Law insisted that every time the royaneh confronted "an especially important matter or a great emergency," they had to "submit the matter to the decision of their people" in a kind of referendum open to both men and women.

In creating such checks on authority, the league was just the most formal expression of a regionwide tradition. Although the Indian sachems on the Eastern Seaboard were absolute monarchs
in theory, wrote the colonial leader Roger Williams, in practice they did not make any decisions "unto which the people are averse." These smaller groups did not have formal,
Iroquois-style constitutions, but their governments, too, were predicated on the consent of the governed. Compared to the despotisms that were the norm in Europe and Asia, the societies encountered by British colonists were a libertarian dream.

To some extent, this freedom reflected North American Indians' relatively recent adoption of agriculture. Early farming villages worldwide have always had less authoritarian governments than their successors. But the Indians of the
Northeast made what the historian José António Brandão calls "autonomous responsibility" a social ideal - the Iroquois especially, but many others, too. Each Indian, the Jesuit missionary Joseph-François Lafitau observed, viewing "others
as masters of their own actions and themselves, lets them conduct themselves as they wish and judges only himself."

So vivid were these examples of democratic self-government that some historians and activists have argued that the Great Law of Peace directly inspired the American Constitution. Taken literally, this assertion seems implausible. With its grant of authority to the federal government to supersede state law, its dependence on rule by the majority rather than consensus and its denial of suffrage to women, the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law. But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty.

For two centuries after Plymouth Rock, the border between natives and newcomers was porous, almost nonexistent. In a way difficult to imagine now, Europeans and Indians mingled, the historian Gary Nash has written, as "trading partners, military allies, and marital consorts."

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, the aging John Adams recalled the Massachusetts of his youth as a multiracial society. "Aaron Pomham, the priest, and Moses Pomham, the King of the Punkapaug and Neponsit Tribes, were frequent visitors at my
father's house," he wrote nostalgically. Growing up in Quincy, Mass., the young Adams frequently visited a neighboring Indian family, "where I never failed to be treated with whortleberries, blackberries, strawberries or apples, plums,
peaches, etc." Benjamin Franklin was equally familiar with Indian company; representing the Pennsylvania colony, he negotiated with the Iroquois in 1754. A close friend was Conrad Weiser, an adopted Mohawk who at the talks was the
Indians' unofficial host.

As many colonists observed, the limited Indian governments reflected levels of personal autonomy unheard of in Europe. "Every man is free," a frontiersman, Robert Rogers, told a disbelieving British audience, referring to Indian villages.
In these places, he said, no person, white or Indian, sachem or slave, has any right to deprive anyone else of his freedom. The Iroquois, Cadwallader Colden declared in 1749, held "such
absolute notions of liberty that they allow of no kind of superiority of one over another, and banish all servitude from their territories." (Colden, surveyor general of New York, was another Mohawk adoptee.)

Not every European admired this democratic spirit. Indians "think every one ought to be left to his own opinion, without being thwarted," the Flemish missionary monk Louis Hennepin wrote in 1683. "There is nothing so difficult to control as
the tribes of America," a fellow missionary unhappily observed. "All these barbarians have the law of wild asses - they are born, live, and die in a liberty without restraint; they do not know what is meant by bridle and bit."

Indians, for their part, were horrified to encounter European social classes, with those on the lower rungs of the hierarchy compelled to defer to those on the upper. When the 17th-century French adventurer Louis-Armand de Lom d'Arce, Baron de Lahontan, tried to convince the Huron, the Iroquois's northern neighbors, of Europe's natural superiority, the Indians scoffed.

Because Europeans had to kowtow to their social betters, Lahontan later reported, "they brand us for slaves, and call us miserable souls, whose life is not worth having." Individual Indians, he wrote "value themselves above anything that you can imagine, and this is the reason they always give for it, that one's as much master as another, and since men are all made of the same clay there should be no distinction or superiority among them."

INFLUENCED by their proximity to Indians - by being around living, breathing role models of human liberty - European colonists adopted their insubordinate attitudes. Lahontan was an example, despite his noble title; his account highlighted
Indian freedoms as an incitement toward rebellion. Both the clergy and Louis XIV, the king whom Lahontan was goading, tried to suppress these dangerous ideas by instructing French
officials to force a French education upon the Indians, complete with lessons in deferring to their social betters. The attempts, the historian Cornelius J. Jaenen reported, were "everywhere unsuccessful."

In the most direct way, Indian liberty made indigenous villages into competitors for colonists' allegiance. Colonial societies could not become too oppressive, because their members -surrounded by examples of free life - always had the option of voting with their feet.

It is likely that the first British villages in North America, thousands of miles from the House of Lords, would have lost some of the brutally graded social hierarchy that characterized European life. But it is also clear that they
were infused by the democratic, informal brashness of American Indian culture. That spirit alarmed and discomfited many Europeans, aristocrat and peasant alike. Others found it a
deeply attractive vision of human possibility.

Historians have been reluctant to acknowledge this
contribution to the end of tyranny worldwide. Yet a plain reading of Locke, Hume, Rousseau and Thomas Paine shows that they took many of their illustrations of liberty from native examples. So did the colonists who held their Boston Tea Party
dressed as "Mohawks." When others took up European
intellectuals' books and histories, images of Indian freedom had an impact far removed in time and space from the 16th-century Northeast.

The pioneering suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Matilda Joslyn Gage, both Finger Lakes residents, were inspired by the Great Law's extension of legal protections to women. "This
gentile constitution is wonderful!" Friedrich Engels exclaimed (though he apparently didn't notice its emphasis on limited state power).

Just like their long-ago confreres in Boston, protesters in South Korea, China and Ukraine wore "Native American" makeup and clothing in, respectively, the 1980's, 1990's, and the first years of this century. Indeed, it is only a little
exaggeration to claim that everywhere liberty is cherished - from Sweden to Soweto, from the streets of Manila to the docks of Manhattan - people are descendants of the Iroquois League
and its neighbors.

...........

Charles C. Mann is the author of the forthcoming "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline bandit1978

  • Posts: 291
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2005, 04:20:00 PM »
Christian fundamentalism is ugly.  And  I'm not Christian (not like most people would think of it), and I believe the gvt. should be secular.

But when McVeigh blew up that building, or when other freaks blow up abortion clinics, Christian ministers/priests/preachers are among the first to condem it.  They don't want to be associated with those people.  Really, it's not a Christian problem.  

So why havn't any muslim clerics issued an official statememt condeming the acts of obl??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
egan Flynn
RN
Survivor- Provo Canyon School

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Past Student
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2005, 05:24:00 PM »
When Erick Rudolph went into hiding in the Carolina mountains, he had ppl leaving him food and clothing and other types of support and comfort. Never mind what the PR guy at the pulpit is saying. Watch what the true believers are doing. If you do that, I think you'll conclude that Xtianity is just as dangerous as any other religion.

At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world.
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline bandit1978

  • Posts: 291
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2005, 07:00:00 PM »
I think they are all dangerous.  

I personally feel more threatened by Christian fundamentalism, because they live here and seek to impede my day-to-day life and activities.  

Do you really think that mainstream Christians would provide refuge to someone who sets off bombs at Planned Parenthood clinics and Olympic stadiums?  

Of course, it's Islamic fundamentalists who blow things up also.  But if the Islamic mainstream does not wish to be associated with violent fundamentalists, why have their leaders not officially condemned them?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
egan Flynn
RN
Survivor- Provo Canyon School

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2005, 07:59:00 PM »
Might have to do with the fact that 'who did it' has never been determined. There are so many unanswered questions:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#45449
The families of the victims have never had their questions acknowledged or answered:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#65458

Some good articles here that shed light on the issue of modern christian terrorism:
http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/coattails.htm

In contrast to the many who have poured out their sympathy and help, a few of the nuttiest extreme-right wing Christian groups have expressed almost precisely the same thoughts as the Taliban: that the terrorists were carrying out the will of God. While the great majority of Christians have moved to show sympathy and understanding, these few extremists have gone the opposite way, by claiming that the victims deserved their punishment. Their claim: "We warned you and you wouldn't do as we said. Now you must suffer." Their most common accusation: that continued right to abortion and continued existence of gay people angered the Almighty.

Many good articles including one on the similarities between obl and rudolph- Cavemen Prove to be Elusive
http://www.insightmag.com/global_user_e ... yid=246513

Quote:
"I knew he was conservative and antigovernment and anti-Clinton, but I didn't know he was antiabortion," Jamie said. The brother theorizes that Rudolph's ideology was influenced when their mother hauled him off to a Missouri commune run by the Christian Identity Movement, which espouses white power. The antiabortion focus is said to result from the notion that "they are murdering white babies. If they were murdering black babies, they'd be all for it," Rudolph's brother said.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2005, 09:35:00 PM »
I agree. I am most worried about funamentalist Jews, Christians and Muslims. They all seem quite insane.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Past Student
« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2005, 10:51:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-07-18 14:24:00, Antigen wrote:

"When Erick Rudolph went into hiding in the Carolina mountains, he had ppl leaving him food and clothing and other types of support and comfort. Never mind what the PR guy at the pulpit is saying. Watch what the true believers are doing. If you do that, I think you'll conclude that Xtianity is just as dangerous as any other religion.

At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world.
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright


"


I know somebody whose hometown was up near where Rudolph was.  It wasn't so much that the locals agreed with bombing abortion clinics and GLBT nightclubs, as it was that they had so much dislike and distrust for the federal government that they didn't believe he'd really done what he was accused of.

*Some* of them probably were bigots, but hostility to the feds had a lot more to do with the behavior than anything else.  And, those folks admire self-reliance.  His living out in the woods while running from the revenoors made him such a local folk hero that people *chose* to believe he wasn't guilty---or that he might or might not be but wouldn't get a fair trial, and so forth.

I've known small town and "small town city" bigots--I don't deny that they exist.

But this wasn't about religion, it was about hillbillies' ingrained dislike and distrust of feds.

Timoclea
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »