35 Responses to “Religious Baiting”

  1. 26

    George Wells

    @Nathan Blue #24:

    Oh, I understand quite well what you are talking about. Your faith is a very modern invention of the grace and the forgiveness of God, something that was NOT part of the philosophy and myths contained in the Old Testament. To the great extent that “CHRISTianity” is really about the New Testament, it is, in my opinion, a very problematic fact that BOTH testaments are published TOGETHER under the label “The Holy Bible”. I find precious little “holy” about the Old Testament. It was the OLD TESTAMENT that provided encouragement to the Crusaders, the negative consequences of which we are still struggling to overcome. It is the OLD TESTAMENT that provides encouragement to self-righteous bigots today. Evidently WE were unable to distinguish the un-Christian nature of the Old Testament then, and we STILL are, so it really doesn’t surprise me that Islam can’t tell the difference either. To them, the violence encouraged by THEIR “Good Book” is no different from the violence encouraged by ours. Trying to explain the difference to a Muslim is like talking to a brick. Like I said earlier, they don’t think like we do, and the difference is cultural, not organic.

    Regarding your complaint of Democratic strategies for winning elections, please don’t forget that both sides employ iterations of the same philosophy. Republicans started out in 2008 stating that their first priority was to insure that Obama was a one-term president. Judging by the productivity of recent congresses, that “first priority” must also have been the ONLY priority. A singularly myopic approach to governance, don’t you think? And the GOP’s approach to the “primary” process of selecting their candidates invariably requires that all but the most extremely “right” contenders be burned at the stake. This is NOT a process for hearing and evaluating differences of opinion. This is NOT a process for encouraging political diversity. This is NOT a process for selecting a candidate that can appeal to a broader segment of the country than white evangelical males. This is NOT a process for winning elections. This is NOT good for the nation.

    The machinations of the Democratic Party have given it an advantage in Presidential Elections. The machinations of the Republican Party have given it an advantage in representative elections. So we get a “one-party authoritarian presidency” and a “one-party authoritarian House of Representatives, and never the twain shall meet. This MIGHT be for the better, considering the corrupting influence power has on those who are touched by it.

    I wouldn’t get my hopes up for a truly Christian resolution to the Middle East Problem if I were you.
    It’s a nice thought, but…

  2. 27


    @George Wells:

    Did you intend to give the impression that there is no racism on the Republican side of the isle?

    Of course not. As Wordsmith knows, I recognize that nearly all mass groupings of people will have individuals who are bigoted in some measure. The personal views of an individual are not necessarily representative of the group. Except perhaps when an overwhelming majority of a group shares them. Yet, even so, there might still reside within a group individuals who do not accept wholly or in part a particular viewpoint that the majority does.

    And for what purpose did you introduce the issue of gun control into OUR discussion?

    This entire thread is in regards to responses to shooter situations. The gun-control touting crowd drools over shooter situations. Ergo, mentioning their tactics is relevant to the overall discussion. We who post here may reply to a single poster, yet include comments towards the group and others in the discussion as a whole. You will note that my mention of the gun-control tactics was not preceded by a quote from you. You and I are not the only people involved in this overall discussion or forum, nor are those who are the only readers. Everything is not about you.

  3. 28


    @George Wells:

    Perhaps you meant to restrict the right of religious “expression” to the right to repeat scripture verbatim? But that would make such a right quite awkward to police, wouldn’t it?

    Wordsmith (in #19) was simply quoting the written words of the shooter. Those words are not Wordsmith’s words, else he would not have given the link or placed them within a quotation block. Quoting someone is not an indication that the person who posted the quote “agrees” with the content which was quoted, unless that person adds their commentary outside of the quote to indicate such agreement. It is simply placing the quoted content out there for all to see. In regards to the quote itself, the shooter’s (atheism-derived,) opinion on restricting the right of religious “expression” is unconstitutional, and as such unenforceable.

  4. 29

    George Wells

    @Ditto #26 and #27:
    If you want a reply to a specific comment, please indicate which post you are commenting on. You will notice that I always afford that consideration so that the particular thread-within-a-thread can be followed.
    And when I address a response to YOU, I don’t confuse the issue by mixing in material that is irrelevant to your question or the specific issue that you raised. Anything else would be a smokescreen. General comments should be left to unaddressed posts. Since you presume to lecture me on blog etiquette.

  5. 32


    @George Wells:

    From Your reply toWordsmith You responded to him as if he had posted a comment. He didn’t, he quoted the shooter and provided a link to the original. You responded to the quoted words of Craig Hicks (the shooter) but aimed your response at Wordsmith, clearly asking Wordsmith to reply to the words as they were his own. I merely tried to point out your error and you got all snippy about it.

    Apparently, you are in need of more lecturing, as you still seem not capable of understanding how “b-quote,” links or clicking “Reply” on Flopping Aces works. (Clicking “Reply” inserts an “@” symbol with the name of the person and creates a link it to the post you are replying to with red letters. If you click on that name in red it will take you directly back to that person’s post. (No need to insert “#30)


    It is not at all uncommon at all here on FA for a poster to reply to someone, and then continue on discussing the general topic. There is no established “etiquette” rule on FA that requires them to start a new post to separate a reply from a continuation of the discussion.

    You got that? There are no “etiquette” rules listed on Flopping Aces, although there are a few things that the moderators will not stand for (such as sockpuppets). If you would like the full list, ask Curt or one of the moderators to enlighten you.

    If you don’t like the structural format someone posts with, that’s your problem not the poster’s. You post in the manner you like, and the rest of us will do the same. As you are not a moderator, we are not beholden to follow your rules of engagement. If this gets your panties in a bunch, you’re free to go whine to the moderators:

    If you have a concern about any posting or comment being factually incorrect, please contact us. Please provide details of who you are, how we can contact you, what your interest is, and what your concern is. If something has been written that is factually incorrect, it will be addressed. Anonymous complaints will be ignored.

  6. 33



    Just returned back to this thread and skimmed through.

    Thanks, Ditto. Much appreciate your attempts at clarifying on my behalf.

    @George Wells #23:

    My point in citing Hicks’ “interesting” fb posting, if you take it in the context of my post and the thrust of the position that I’ve taken- is that by him- a militant atheist and anti-theist- defending the Ground Zero Mosque and bringing up religious freedom to practice, confirms his wife’s statements as to his being for equal rights for everyone; and defies the belief that Hicks’ parking rage was motivated by Islamaphobia and hatred of Muslims.

    Yes, he hates all religion. But unless there’s evidence to the contrary, his murder of 3 beautiful people didn’t have to do with their religious faith. It had to do with his fixation on the parking situation.

  7. 35

    George Wells

    @Wordsmith #32:
    Your point is well taken.
    My #23 comments focused primarily on what I saw as Hick’s errors of judgment, drawing too fine a distinction between freedom of religious thought and freedom of religious comment. My apology if I made too direct a connection between his statements and your opinion.

    Sometimes “sh*t happens,” the converse of “random acts of kindness.” Sometimes people “wake up on the wrong side of the bed,” or suffer “a bit of undigested potato.” Or, as you suggest, a pet peeve becomes a momentary obsession, or worse. The tendency to extrapolate backwards and speculate on the causes of such random tragic moments to fit one’s political agenda is mischief and no more. A rational person recognizes the difference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *