Backlash

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:02 pm

Perhaps the gays and lesbians have over played their , ummm....hand.

DAYTON, Tenn. - The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... &printer=1

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:16 pm

I wonder if Nature will seek punitive damages.

Tangaroa · Post by **Tangaroa** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:51 pm

I smell inbreeding leading to chronic stupidity.

The people from this area of the world are probaly as bad as your average islamic fundamentalist, except they are christian instead of islamic.

Hopefully, they will continue breeding untill all thye are capable of doing is drooling, grunting and poking eachother with sticks.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:51 pm

Tangaroa, STFU. I'm a christian, and that's a low blow. If you need to say that to feel good about yourself, jump off a cliff.

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:08 pm

Tangaroa wrote:The people from this area of the world are probaly as bad as your average islamic fundamentalist, except they are christian instead of islamic.

It's obvious you know nothing about Islam or Christianity.

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:08 pm

I take that back. I'll edit my previous statement to say that "it's obvious you know nothing."

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:35 pm

I wonder if "Tangaroa" is really our old pal Rican? He is using a HotMail address, has Rican's bad spelling and typos and is also new user.

Hmmmmmm...

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:28 am

That was the oddest news story I've ever read. In addition to the surreality of the story itself, fully a third of the sentences in that article were about the Scopes trial, and didn't have anything to do with the main story. Nerg...

MehYam · Post by **MehYam** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:32 am

Meathead wrote:Tangaroa, STFU. I'm a christian, and that's a low blow. If you need to say that to feel good about yourself, jump off a cliff.

Priceless!

Tangaroa · Post by **Tangaroa** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:53 am

Sorry for any offence caused, im not targeting christians or americans, im using this idea that people from some parts of america are inbred and making fun of the people trying to pass this law.

And superficially there realy isnt all that much difference between religious extremists from what ive heard/seen. Sure, the religion might be different, but they dont act all that differently.

They are probably not inbred or stupid, but they should have more respect for human rights and stop trying to impose their morals on other people.

As for this rican person, I have no idea who he is, I just got D3 last year and just registered here a month and a bit ago I think.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:52 am

What I took out of his post was that these people make most other Christians look bad

*cues banjo in the woods* I think we better run now!

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:03 pm

The people from this area of the world are probaly as bad as your average islamic fundamentalist, except they are christian instead of islamic.

Why is this offensive? Christian fundamentalists are just as willing to let others die for their causes as islamic ones are.

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:18 pm

Meathead wrote:Tangaroa, STFU. I'm a christian, and that's a low blow. If you need to say that to feel good about yourself, jump off a cliff.

Yea, of course christian fundamentalists can't be as bad as muslim fundamentalists because hey, they're Christians! They possibly can't be as bad!

Tangaroa's post didn't mention anything about your average christian.

To add something to the actual topic, yea, if the news are true, they're pretty far from anything reasonable (not to mention 'freedom').

Repo Man · Post by **Repo Man** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:30 pm

Gooberman wrote:Why is this offensive? Christian fundamentalists are just as willing to let others die for their causes as islamic ones are.

The meter is pegging on my troll detector...

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:07 am

lol wut?

there is little difference between christian fundamentalists and islamic fundamentalists.

they are both essentially supposed to be peaceful.
you'll notice that other fundamentalist sects speak out and say that these people "arn't really islamic fundamentalists, because the Koran says to be peaceable to one another".

why are you taking such offence at the statement?

the Crucades were supposed christian fundamentalists. and what a bloodbath they were.

what is, and what isn't a fundamentalist teaching, is answered by what you consider to be the fundamentals of your religion. these crazies who blow ★■◆● up obviously think that their religion's fundamentals teach that they have to go kill all the other religions. yet other fundamentalist sects say the exact opposite, and are as calm and peaceful as Tibetan monks.

Islamic Fundamentalist = a hardline Islamic person. loves everyone, reads the Koran and holds it dear to heart, helpful, courteous, generous, has upstanding morals.

Militaristic Islamic Fundamentalist = mad bomber guy

Christian Fundamentalist = a hardline christian, basically trys to walk in Jesus' footsteps so is very chilled out and friendly, basically has the same value system as islamic fundamentalists. (Ned Flanders?)

Militaristic Christian Fundamentalist = mad bomber guy (we generally lock a lot of these people up in mental wards). these are also commonly called "crazy christian cult members", surely you know what i'm talking about.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:06 pm

Meathead wrote:
Tangaroa, STFU. I'm a christian, and that's a low blow. If you need to say that to feel good about yourself, jump off a cliff.

Priceless!

That *is* pretty funny. heh

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:08 pm

sig test

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:09 pm

Eh? no sigs?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:28 pm

well said by roid...

I think the problem (with people feeling insulted and others feeling like they haven't said anything insulting) is the word "fundamentalist" isn't very well defined.

One group of people uses "fundamentalist" as a synonym for "wacko". To them, if you're a Christian Fundamentalist you're likely to bomb an abortion clinic or stand on the street corner with a sign that says "Jesus saves" and pick fights. And to them, if you're an Islamic Fundamentalist you're likely to bomb the world trade center and beat up Jews.

Another group uses "fundamentalist" as a synonym for "devout". To them, a Fundamentalist Christian is someone who reads the Bible every day and literally believes everything it says. And to them, a Fundamentalist Muslim is someone who reads the Koran and prays to Mecca and all that every day.

So, there are people who apply the label "fundamentalist" to themselves because they fit in the second group, and there are others who insult "fundamentalists" because the first group is a bunch of wackos. Then the people in the second group think they're being insulted, while the people writing the insults think they're only dissing the first group, and that nobody else has reason to complain. All because we mean different things by "fundamentalist"...

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:26 pm

I think "radical" and "militant" are better choices over fundamentalist ... although I think there are plenty of fundamentalists who are radical and militant. Maybe "theologically hostile" is what we're looking for when describing the religious shock troops.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:55 pm

The term fundamentalist was first used in the 1920's to describe those who adhered to the "Fundamentals of the Faith" which were a collection of tracts mostly about the authority of the Bible, authenticity of miracles, etc. These documents were published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (my alma mater) and were distributied throughout the country. So the term originally meant someone who did not accept Liberal Theology's critiques of the Bible.

The way the term is used today, it seems to be someone whose basic beliefs are accepted uncritically or on authority. Of course, on this definition there could be secular as well as religious fundamentalists.

The main problem that people talk about with fundamentalists is the use of violence to achieve their ends. Again, religion has nothing close to a monopoly on this aspect.