![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
These two posts were part of a split from the thread-Bean
Moderator: Moderators
So basically, you're advocating supression of religious groups by the threat of a violent militia that explicitely excludes Christians in a predominantly Christian country. Getting your movement labeled as terrorists and both inciting and legitimizing violent retaliation against you. Good call thereArcturusMengsk wrote:Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement. And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them. And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity. Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.
Go tell that to John Brown, who was in his day cast in precisely the same role as you would hold me; the only difference between us being that he was motivated out of a Christian morality, and I out of an anti-Christian ethos.The Romulan Republic wrote:So basically, you're advocating supression of religious groups by the threat of a violent militia that explicitely excludes Christians in a predominantly Christian country. Getting your movement labeled as terrorists and both inciting and legitimizing violent retaliation against you. Good call there. Until systematic violence is being used against you, how do you justify such a disproportionate act of retalliation? Because that's what I see here: vigilanty thuggery in retaliation for political injustices.
Agreed. If your only desire is to inch the nation towards war, form a militant anti-religious movement and send them against the most reactionary and (if stereotypes are to be believed) well-armed segment of the populace. I believe homosexuals should have every right of heterosexuals, but I don't know that it would be worth the death of thousands or millions of American lives to make it so WITHOUT FIRST EXHAUSTING peaceful actions. Prop 8 passed by a very thin margin in California- time and peaceful action are your friend in this matter. Incensing the majority and provoking a potentially bloody backlash is not.CaptainChewbacca wrote:You don't see how insanely dangerous and prone to backfire a militant, anti-christian vigilantie organization could become, and that it would only accomplish its goal at the expense of thousands of lives?
John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was one of the polarizing events that led to the civil war, arguably the most violent and turbulent period of American history. If you want to bring about equality for homosexuals in an orgy of blood, you probably havn't considered a better way.
Of course it would be dangerous. No great undertaking is accomplished without some amount of hardship. However, I have seen among my close friends in my generation - thanks in no small part to my 'prostelyzation' efforts on a local level, but also a growing trend absent myself - an increase not only in atheistic, but anti-Christian sentiment. If such an event occurs, it will happen in this century; I do believe that the economic difficulties of our day will continue for some duration, and will precipitate at least a parallel historical framework to that of the mid-nineteenth century. And I believe that this social issue will be at the heart of the conflict, if and when it comes.CaptainChewbacca wrote:You don't see how insanely dangerous and prone to backfire a militant, anti-christian vigilantie organization could become, and that it would only accomplish its goal at the expense of thousands of lives?
Some wars are necessary. The First World War, for instance, was not; it was avoidable, at least America's entry into it, and would have been avoided had not Wilson bungled the concept of armed neutrality. The Civil War, on the other hand, would have come sooner rather than later. Had it not occurred in the 1860s, then perhaps it would have began forty years later, when the tools of war and the strategies for utilizing them would have caused even greater devastation than happened in reality. Occasionally nations must undergo catharsis to purge the bad and terrible things from its body-politic.John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was one of the polarizing events that led to the civil war, arguably the most violent and turbulent period of American history. If you want to bring about equality for homosexuals in an orgy of blood, you probably havn't considered a better way.
Cut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.Ok internet tough guy, you first. You want to violently rise up and oppress a group, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Start organizing, arming, etc. I'll follow the news to see if this pans out for you.
Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement managed to avoid all that.ArcturusMengsk wrote:Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement. And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them. And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity. Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.
Need I remind you that the Reverend King came into a leadership role a full century after the Civil War - a century which, might I add, saw the Ku Klux Klan reach an organization strength in the millions, the destruction of entire black shanty-towns in Florida and Alabama, and the lynchings of tens of thousands of African-American individuals in the decades between? King was the culmination of that history, not the start of it.Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement managed to avoid all that.
So again, I should sacrifice for your ideals by funding you rather then you putting it on the line for what you think is right.ArcturusMengsk wrote:Cut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.Ok internet tough guy, you first. You want to violently rise up and oppress a group, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Start organizing, arming, etc. I'll follow the news to see if this pans out for you.
Very well. I'll report back to you when I've acquired the munitions to carry out my plans, at which point I expect, no doubt, that you'll report me to the police. So be it.Ender wrote:Put up or shut up, loser.
Now, who was it who hoped to concentrate the cultural ill-will toward a religious group last century? I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure it turned out alright for everyone involved. Seriously, when has long-term planned religious persecution EVER turned out well? You'll become something worse than that which you oppose.ArcturusMengsk wrote:Of course it would be dangerous. No great undertaking is accomplished without some amount of hardship. However, I have seen among my close friends in my generation - thanks in no small part to my 'prostelyzation' efforts on a local level, but also a growing trend absent myself - an increase not only in atheistic, but anti-Christian sentiment. If such an event occurs, it will happen in this century; I do believe that the economic difficulties of our day will continue for some duration, and will precipitate at least a parallel historical framework to that of the mid-nineteenth century. And I believe that this social issue will be at the heart of the conflict, if and when it comes.
I'll pass your well-wishes onto Kodiak, my brother, who IS Mormon. I was raised protestant (Presbyterian) and currently attend a nondenominational evangellical church. I also voted in favor of gay marriage, and am against Churches getting involved in politics.Moreover, I have been led to understand that you are a Mormon (I may be wrong), and that I may have offended your sensibilities. If so, I mean no insult to you, but I would just as soon see the entire organizational structure of your faith disappear in a nuclear fireball as to see it spread to another single individual.
So, you think an armed military conflict AGAINST the Mormon church is going to be beneficial to human history?Mormonism today is growing at a faster rate than any other Christian faith, and it has as dictatorial a predisposition as any Baptist group; moreover, unlike the Southern Baptist Conference, it has cohesion enough as a unit to prove a dire threat to individual liberties should it orient itself in that position. All individuals concerned with such trivialities as 'separation of church and state', 'freedom of conscience' and the like ought to wage a campaign of words against it, and, if it comes to it, of action, against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I feel that, had Lincoln implemented his anti-Mormon as well as his anti-slavery programme, the United States would be the better for it today.
Your ideas of what were and were not historic inevitabilities are quite curious, as Wilson was actually TRYING to get us into world war one. Likewise, your musings of the necessity of periodic PURGES of the law-abiding civilian population of a nation, are something that would make Stalin beam with pride.Some wars are necessary. The First World War, for instance, was not; it was avoidable, at least America's entry into it, and would have been avoided had not Wilson bungled the concept of armed neutrality. The Civil War, on the other hand, would have come sooner rather than later. Had it not occurred in the 1860s, then perhaps it would have began forty years later, when the tools of war and the strategies for utilizing them would have caused even greater devastation than happened in reality. Occasionally nations must undergo catharsis to purge the bad and terrible things from its body-politic.
And the KKK was not combatted with force of arms, but through political and social will of the people. The blacks of the south didn't organize militia to fight them, nor was the army deployed to rout them out.Need I remind you that the Reverend King came into a leadership role a full century after the Civil War - a century which, might I add, saw the Ku Klux Klan reach an organization strength in the millions, the destruction of entire black shanty-towns in Florida and Alabama, and the lynchings of tens of thousands of African-American individuals in the decades between? King was the culmination of that history, not the start of it.
At this point, you are advocating the commission of specific crimes against a specific religious group, which I believe qualifies as hate speech. You should probably stop.OkCut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.
Uh-huh. I look forward to your continued posting instead of you actually working towards this, with this topic only to be broached again in the future when you feel there is enough groundswell for you to post such bullshit and get away with it.ArcturusMengsk wrote:Very well. I'll report back to you when I've acquired the munitions to carry out my plans, at which point I expect, no doubt, that you'll report me to the police. So be it.Ender wrote:Put up or shut up, loser.
As persons advocating armed conflict against the LGBT community on this board would face serious discipline from the mods, shouldn't the standard apply in reverse? This is far beyond grand posturing, and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I feel it is dangerous and offensive.CaptainChewbacca wrote: At this point, you are advocating the commission of specific crimes against a specific religious group, which I believe qualifies as hate speech. You should probably stop.
I don't expect to garner any support on this particular forum, since even the atheists here are of the garden-variety Dawkinsonian stripe, and the very reason why secularism is in decline in the first place. When the Christian feels his 'rights' are threatened, he beats the drums of war and goes on the march; when the secular humanist feels likewise, he gently sobs into his hands and surrenders, quivering, without a fight. Most of you are as contemptible as the groups against which you rail, with the added problem of being mostly inept at political manuevering and hence ineffectual at securing the liberties you seek. However, I assure you that the day will come when, seeing as opportunity to realize their theocratic regimen in the event of economic pandemonium, the religious forces in this nation which have to date been bottle-necked by the political limits of liberal democracy will rise forth, and not one of you will be able to, or will even attempt to, prevent it.Ender wrote:Uh-huh. I look forward to your continued posting instead of you actually working towards this, with this topic only to be broached again in the future when you feel there is enough groundswell for you to post such bullshit and get away with it.
And you continue to sit on your butt, basking in the illumination provided by your LCD screen rather than stand up for what you profess to believe in. So yeah, you are another wuss who just likes to talk big on the internet. Thanks for proving me right. Man, that happens a lot.ArcturusMengsk wrote:I don't expect to garner any support on this particular forum, since even the atheists here are of the garden-variety Dawkinsonian stripe, and the very reason why secularism is in decline in the first place. When the Christian feels his 'rights' are threatened, he beats the drums of war and goes on the march; when the secular humanist feels likewise, he gently sobs into his hands and surrenders, quivering, without a fight. Most of you are as contemptible as the groups against which you rail, with the added problem of being mostly inept at political manuevering and hence ineffectual at securing the liberties you seek. However, I assure you that the day will come when, seeing as opportunity to realize their theocratic regimen in the event of economic pandemonium, the religious forces in this nation which have to date been bottle-necked by the political limits of liberal democracy will rise forth, and not one of you will be able to, or will even attempt to, prevent it.Ender wrote:Uh-huh. I look forward to your continued posting instead of you actually working towards this, with this topic only to be broached again in the future when you feel there is enough groundswell for you to post such bullshit and get away with it.
Seeing as how his sig is a reference to this and how we would respond if there was a sig "Hitler had the right idea" we would boot them, yeah, it probably should.Kodiak wrote:As persons advocating armed conflict against the LGBT community on this board would face serious discipline from the mods, shouldn't the standard apply in reverse? This is far beyond grand posturing, and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I feel it is dangerous and offensive.CaptainChewbacca wrote: At this point, you are advocating the commission of specific crimes against a specific religious group, which I believe qualifies as hate speech. You should probably stop.
Jesus, are you going to hold up any standard of debate or logical discussion here, or just engage him in a HURR HURR HE MAN YOU REALLY TOO PUSSY TO MEAN YOUR SHIT contest? There's plenty to point out as flawed by him and his reasoning, but you don't debate and then go for the jugular as he repeats himself, you started out with "Ok internet tough guy, you first." Thanks, Esteemed Senator, for showing us the way to productive debate. I know you may think you're really putting him in his place, but we have mods, we have a Mike already. How is this really increasing the quality of discourse and contributing to a conflict of ideas? This is just garden-variety cock-measuring. Its no more becoming on you than it is on him.Ender wrote:And you continue to sit on your butt, basking in the illumination provided by your LCD screen rather than stand up for what you profess to believe in. So yeah, you are another wuss who just likes to talk big on the internet. Thanks for proving me right. Man, that happens a lot.
I must say, you are my favorite relative new poster, because you're the only one I've met that even approaches (and not there, even) the absurd delusions of the media and mainstream right in this country that there is a far left segment in this country anywhere close to as activist and aggressive as the far right. That said, I disagree with your basic thesis. The evidence for a medium-term economic collapse and theocratic oppression is way too threadbare and unclear to support the need to plan for militant aggression against theocratic elements. And premature preparations and organization for it will only aid the right's political propaganda against the progressives, especially in the quite possible scenario your fears never come to light. There is a strong possibility it will be counterproductive and cause needless violence and divisiveness in the body politic. However, I do think that there obviously is a scenario where what you are calling for would be well-justified, at least by common American historical narratives and the mainstream political rhetoric used to justify myriad attempts to bring freedom by the sword. Therefore, I am going to play somewhat the devil's advocate and defend you against your detractors.ArcturusMengsk wrote:Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement. And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them. And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity. Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.
Clearly abolitionists should've said please and thank you while resisting the ownership and torture of an entire race of people. And if you want to bring equality for blacks in an orgy of blood, then you haven't found a better way? Are you seriously criticizing the Union in the Civil War as fighting a moral conflict when it ended black slavery?CaptainChewbacca wrote:John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was one of the polarizing events that led to the civil war, arguably the most violent and turbulent period of American history. If you want to bring about equality for homosexuals in an orgy of blood, you probably havn't considered a better way.
Only after enormous race riots and the rise of black seperatism in the form of Malcolm X and the like; MLK was the civil rights leader they could work with, but it was the pressure to mollify a potentially radicalizing movement which made it so successful.CaptainChewbacca wrote:Edit: I'd also like to point out, that in the 20th century, the greatest strides toward equality of minorities was done through nonviolent means and political pressure, not force of arms.
Did you vote for Bush in 2000? 2004? What was your position on freedom from the tip of a bayonet in Iraq?Kodiak wrote:I believe homosexuals should have every right of heterosexuals, but I don't know that it would be worth the death of thousands or millions of American lives to make it so WITHOUT FIRST EXHAUSTING peaceful actions.
What the fuck? Are you insane or do you just like supporting mass murderers?Diocletian had the right idea.
I know you don't agree with him, but you shouldn't encourage him to carry out his ideas, even to make a point. If he walks into a church full of Mormons tomorrow and blows a kid's head off, you would share in the blame for that crime.Ender wrote:So again, I should sacrifice for your ideals by funding you rather then you putting it on the line for what you think is right.ArcturusMengsk wrote:Cut me a check and fund my efforts, then, and I will. And I could bring at least ten men into the fold myself if given the munitions, one of them having already been arrested and charged for assaulting a Jehovah's Witness missionary, and being generally more ill-disposed towards the sect than I am. I would have no qualms with it whatsoever. Indeed, several of my friends have already made preliminary plans for such an event, but as a contingency in the case of a general economic collapse, when the theocratic forces will be at their strongest.Ok internet tough guy, you first. You want to violently rise up and oppress a group, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is. Start organizing, arming, etc. I'll follow the news to see if this pans out for you.
Put up or shut up, loser.
He probably will try but don't expect him to actually spend any political capital on it. The Dems can pretty much take gays for granted and have taken shameless advantage of them. The Democrats know the gay vote isn't going to desert and they still have to appease their religious nutters.Pint0 Xtreme wrote:And now we have to wait and see if he'll at least make attempts on his promises.
How is secularism in decline? A very vaguely religious President has been elected over the objections of a vocal nativist minority which suspected him of African-Muslim or atheistic socialist Manchurian Candidate characteristics. Gay marriage is a reachable reality which may yet be victorious in CA. It is in Mass and Conn. The youth is more non-religious and atheistic than any previous generation. Churchgoing is at all-time lows. The probably growth capacity of the Mormon and Southern churches is limited, and is definitely blunted by the overall atheistic-shift of society. I say what we are seeing is a desperate reaction.ArcturusMengsk wrote:I don't expect to garner any support on this particular forum, since even the atheists here are of the garden-variety Dawkinsonian stripe, and the very reason why secularism is in decline in the first place.
Is the test for contemptiblity purely one of ideological virility and aggression? Or logical value, potential to aid human development, and associated with culture and education?ArcturusMengsk wrote:When the Christian feels his 'rights' are threatened, he beats the drums of war and goes on the march; when the secular humanist feels likewise, he gently sobs into his hands and surrenders, quivering, without a fight. Most of you are as contemptible as the groups against which you rail, with the added problem of being mostly inept at political manuevering and hence ineffectual at securing the liberties you seek.
As I said before, the Malcolm X approach may be extreme, but in some sectors of American culture, clearly justified; LBGTQ people are at high risk of social alienation and aggression by the religious majority. And in the event of your scenario, clearly armed struggle to secure survival and liberty would be desirable. But the evidence to establish such an event as inevitable and immanent, and thus ethically sanction aggressive preemption on the part of progressives and atheists is not established.ArcturusMengsk wrote:However, I assure you that the day will come when, seeing as opportunity to realize their theocratic regimen in the event of economic pandemonium, the religious forces in this nation which have to date been bottle-necked by the political limits of liberal democracy will rise forth, and not one of you will be able to, or will even attempt to, prevent it.