Christo-fascists harass High School Student

Post Reply New Topic

Atheism and Violence, Post-Enlightenment, Cambridge University:

"Despite Dawkins' protestations there does seem to be a case for finding a connection between atheist tyrannies and the atheism of the doctrines they apply; this is the case both for Marxism and for the influence of Nietzsche on the intellectual justification of Nazism."

"The biologically reductionist picture of human nature which Dawkins, Dennett and others present to us does not seem to provide us with any particularly good reason to suppose that morality will develop towards greater perfection and a diminution of violence, or even for why humanity should develop in this direction."



Sure, as long as they are not violent.

Despite how someone justified Nazism, the basis of it was religious. Hitler was, if I remember correctly, Catholic and believed it was his duty from God to exterminate all the non Aryan peoples. I think it was the shoe buckles of the Nazi soldiers that said "God With Us"?

So you support speech that has no intent other to incite violence as long as the speaker isn't violent themselves? I could go incite a riot but as long as I don't participate in the riot myself I am innocent?

Okay… first, I’m not a bigot. However, I do have a DEEP AND ABIDING HATRED AND CONTEMPT FOR ZEALOTS. Be they Christian, atheist, Muslim, whatever, fundies suck.

Second, if humanity has degenerated to the point where we can get this silly over a plaque with some superstitious nonsense written on it and a petulant little girl on a power trip, then yes, WE NEED TO SNUFF IT and leave the world to the cockroaches.

Get real... That "explicitly religious display" was probably some dusty old piece of crap nobody ever paid attention to except this girl... and she wasn't offended. She was inspired.

She saw a piece of low hanging fruit and could not resists picking it to get her fifteen minutes of fame.

And it worked too. She's a hero for the cause and all that s**t.

...only she didn't do anything but piss off some white trash.

She wasn't forced to pray, or say "under god" in the pledge or anything, really... She was repressed by some sh***y school mural.

Guys, this is a nonissue and it isn't worthy of your time.

I urge you to find something better to post about.

Umm... those buckles were not on Nazi Party soldiers, they were on Wehrmacht (the German Army) soldiers. The badge goes back to the late Roman Army and was on German uniforms during the First World War. The Nazi's did not introduce it. The soldiers of the Nazi party, the SS, on the other hand had belt buckles that said, 'My honour is loyalty'.

The Nazi Party was dramatically anti-Catholic, it killed 10% of the Clergy in Poland. Yes, some members of religions did actually sign up for the Nazi Party and there is a enough shame to go around for everyone. Hitler himself, held to a more-or-less racial religion and his stated goal was to eventually destroy Christianity as he thought it was too weak. Please note, no where did I claim that he was an atheist, you just assumed that I was. The point of my post, focused on the undeniable link between Nietzsche and the ideology of Nazism.



Pretty much.

91 wrote:

Please pile it on until your collective (no pun intended) hearts are content.

Hmm……well I’ll just do a few because I have other threads to straighten out.

91 wrote:


Did you ever stop and think that her campaign about the banner was offensive to the sensitiveness of the majority of the student body or is it only atheists/agnostics that are entitled to be offended?

Vexcalibur wrote:


This is about a BANNER. Do you know what a banner is??? It does not qualify as cramming anything down anyone’s throat, brainwashing, or mandating the Christian religion. It is a banner and a banner only.
If it were an active form of indoctrination then you all would have a case.
All I see here is an atheist that’s trying her damndest to cram her beliefs (or call them non-beliefs) down everyone’s throats in that school.

Master_Pedant wrote:


Again, we’re talking about a B-A-N-N-E-R. Do you people even know what a banner is? If some Islamic kids want to put up a banner in any public school I really don’t care and neither should anyone else as long as they don’t object to a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or whatever banner. I might not particularly like it if I were a student there but oh well. I’m certainly not to allow myself to dislike it enough to make a spectacle and nuisance out of myself at the expense of others. Again, banners hung by the student body do not constitute forced religion by the state unless you are really paranoid.



It’s “call Raptor out on his moral immaturity”, not “call Raptor on out his moral immaturity” duh.
I’m really surprised you’d just automatically give me credit for being a grown man but whatever……….
For you to call me “tremendously reprehensible” is a compliment of the highest order.
Gimmee some more.

Abacacus wrote:


/\ Read a few paragraphs above /\



There are no compulsory school prayers in any public school I know of. Nor are there any courtroom oaths that implement religion. Where have you been the past several decades?



I correctly figure you and others in this thread will one day clamor to have any church viewable from a public place or adjacent to government property razed to the ground under the cloak of religious freedom. Hey, if a church has a cross on it that means it’s forcing its will on you. Can’t have that now can we?
It’s the slippery slope syndrome.

Oodain wrote:


Yep, gotta throw the fundies in there. How could we be so remiss as to have forgotten to harp on them??

Master_Pedant wrote:


Oops, thought you were talking to me again.

Vigilans wrote:


Shame in him! You people are way too much fun to have dead.
You should have your chimp throw sh!t at him.

91 wrote:

Sticks and stones………..?

Well, that should about do it for now but I’d more than be glad to come back for more.

The girl in question may have predatory in her complaints. That said, it does not follow that she can be justifiably sent death threats. We are talking about two things here. If you want to argue against her, by all means do so. If you want to argue that the banner should have been no harm to anyone, go for it. But we need these sorts of discussions to occur under an umbrella of civility. Take issue with her, argue until you are blue in the mouth. But we need to all agree that death threats are wrong and that those who make them ought to be condemned.

It's a banner. I know that. It has no place in any public environment.

School prayer is one of those things christians have tried to promote to me many times, it's been gone for a while thankfully.

However, to testify in court (in Canada anyway, not sure if this is different in the states) one must swear on the bible unless they are Native American in which case they can swear on an eagle feather. Also in the oaths that must be taken when assuming public office. Religion has no place in any of these environments, it has no place anywhere on this earth aside from buildings and homes owned or rented by religious people.

Last edited by abacacus on 24 Jan 2012, 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

He was jus' keeding mang

Nietzsches Ubermernsch was an individual who can hold a subjective moral philosophy. How Hitler got the Aryan race out of that I don't even know.

You live in a Constitutional Monarchy, it is a country that like mine, has religious traditions. As such, feel free to move elsewhere if you do not like them. Also can you clean up your post a bit, it seems like you are quoting me when you are actually quoting others.



Really??? Must have missed this part:

"The sick are the great danger of man, not the evil, not the 'beasts of prey.' They who are from the outset botched, oppressed, broken those are they, the weakest are they, who most undermine the life beneath the feet of man, who instill the most dangerous venom and skepticism into our trust in life, in man, in ourselves…Here teem the worms of revenge and vindictiveness; here the air reeks of things secret and unmentionable; here is ever spun the net of the most malignant conspiracy – the conspiracy of the sufferers against the sound and the victorious; here is the sight of the victorious hated." - The Genealogy of Morals

Or some more:

"Man shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior, anything else is folly"
on women: "They belong in the kitchen and their chief role in life is to beget children for German warriors."

It would take a pretty myopic view to think that the movie 'Triumph of the Will' is not based on 'The Will to Power'. For myself, I don't necessarily think Neitchze was a fascist or a Nazi, but it did not make much reading into his work to get to some pretty nasty conclusions.

Correct. The Nazis only had a very superficial understanding of Nietzsche. In fact, Nietzsche was himself contemptuous of Anti-semites, which caused the end of his friendship with Richard Wagner.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I do indeed live in a constitutional monarchy (although the Queen is just a figurehead and has no real power over the Canadian government). This does not mean that I should be forced to agree with her religion, or the religion the majority of the government accepts, or to swear by gods that mean nothing to me.

I will not move elsewhere, because like most other humans I would rather do my best to change my environment to suit me, and in this also to suit many others.

I'll try and clean that quote up a bit, I don't know where it got screwed.

Exactly.

Civil rights need only apply when the majority have decided so, especially if just one person's rights are in question. There's an old saying in Communist China: The nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Raptor would no doubt not cry foul if his rights were peculiarly suspended to deprive him of life, liberty, or property without due process or any of the niceties of the Constitution since his sacrifice would be from the one to the many.

In effect, the Establishment Clause and the whole First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution be damned if popular opinion dislikes the consequence!

So it must be OK to violate the civil liberties of one person if the majority agrees.

Last edited by PM on 25 Jan 2012, 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yup. That sums it up.

I wonder if Raptor's aware of the "disruptive" history of early Christianity. Namely speaking, how early Christians refused to honour the civic religious tradition of the Roman Empire, refused to swear allegiance to the Roman Empire, and didn't get polytheistic statues taken down by the courts by rather vandalized them. Does "majority rule no matter what" Raptor hate the early Christians due to being so "self-aggrandizing" and "smug" (or whatever vile insults he's slung onto that brave young woman).

Incidentally, Raptor, do you oppose civil rights activists because of how "disruptive" their practices where? Given your nostalgia for the Confederacy, I guess there's a half-decent chance of it.

According to them. Under their rule we wouldn't *have* any rights.