General Discussion

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)

228. Of course the 'you' was meant generally, as in straight religious folks, but you yourself defended

Tue May 5, 2015, 11:23 AM

May 2015

Warren and attacked those of us who were not happy to be denigrated by our own Party.
Here you are claiming that not honoring the bigot Warren was tantamount to 'shunning him':
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7999325

Here's a thread in which you claim Warren is acceptable because LGBT people did not work hard enough to stop Prop 8:
" Maybe if you and others spent a little more time posting threads about how to constructively bring about greater Civil Rights for all.

Maybe if you focused a little more on winning over those who are most likely to understand your position.

Maybe if you'd spent more time posting about Prop 8 and how to defeat it BEFORE it was passed.

Maybe if you'd spend some more time posting about how to revoke Prop 8 now that it has passed."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8033672

Here's a thread in which you characterize objections to hate preacher Warren as demands by a 'Special interest group':
"You just illustrated the hypocrisy- Obama can reach out to breach the divide but not when it's inconvenient for MY personal interest group."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8018092

Just for the record, people should read those posts and understand your historic positions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

273 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It is absolutely okay to provoke religious fundamentalists [View all] FLPanhandle May 2015 OP

Is it also acceptable to provoke fundamentalist type atheists? guillaumeb May 2015 #1

If I tried to impose some atheist rule on you FLPanhandle May 2015 #3

Do you use the N word? Renew Deal May 2015 #95

You may be missing the meaning of "fundamentalism" here. -eom gcomeau May 2015 #119

I'm asking for a different reason. Renew Deal May 2015 #129

The ones the OP is speaking of... gcomeau May 2015 #139

In your opinion Renew Deal May 2015 #180

If you sincerely don't comprehend... gcomeau May 2015 #231

Now you see the point. Renew Deal May 2015 #234

Umm, what? gcomeau May 2015 #237

like they say azureblue May 2015 #107

No way dude mindwalker_i May 2015 #149

No way. It's cottage cheese. Jamastiene May 2015 #182

What is a "fundamentalist atheist"?? sufrommich May 2015 #10

Someone who exhibits much the same behavior as a religious fundamentalist guillaumeb May 2015 #18

Atheism is a lack of belief,there is no "worship", no prayers, sufrommich May 2015 #23

Agreed. guillaumeb May 2015 #28

Ahh, then it's like TexasProgresive May 2015 #44

My understanding is that you're describing agnosticism. geek tragedy May 2015 #52

Atheism is not a positive statement that there is no god. Marr May 2015 #81

BS. You are describing a (very small) subset of atheism whatthehey May 2015 #106

are you sure strong atheism is a lot less common than weak atheism? nt geek tragedy May 2015 #113

In my experience, yes. beam me up scottie May 2015 #155

No, I'm an agnostic atheist. beam me up scottie May 2015 #154

an atheist can just say hfojvt May 2015 #229

No, but there is a lot to be nasty and irritating about NT 1939 May 2015 #164

Oh bother. edhopper May 2015 #26

My feelings exactly. Thanks, Pooh! erronis May 2015 #140

Atheists have science, which is not classified as a "belief system." Religion relies on faith, by WinkyDink May 2015 #32

what of my other points? guillaumeb May 2015 #46

Bollocks, no-one here takes what Dawkins or any atheist says as "unquestioned truth" muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #69

The faith that you discuss is obviously Christianity. guillaumeb May 2015 #75

Obviously, I am discussing several faiths muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #87

I could have misunderstood, but if so I misunderstood guillaumeb May 2015 #151

Religions make a lot of claims about the nature of the universe besides it's origin. Marr May 2015 #121

Everybody has science. rug May 2015 #134

Hate to be the proverbial fly in the ointment here, but science relies on 'faith' also (at KingCharlemagne May 2015 #212

Atheism is lack of belief - TBF May 2015 #41

a lack of "belief" azureblue May 2015 #103

As an Atheist, I don't "lack" a damned thing. A HERETIC I AM May 2015 #249

Nicely put! n/t ozone_man May 2015 #252

No need to be so angry - TBF May 2015 #259

Angry? A HERETIC I AM May 2015 #265

OK, you're not angry. TBF May 2015 #270

Why shouldn't atheists be angry when we're constantly misrepresented here? beam me up scottie May 2015 #266

And with the responses of you TBF May 2015 #269

Insisting that there is no real proof of god Binkie The Clown May 2015 #47

Agreed. The existence of a creator is unprovable. guillaumeb May 2015 #53

to qualify that azureblue May 2015 #109

A nice point. guillaumeb May 2015 #153

I know at least two clowns who are not scary. Jamastiene May 2015 #183

How can I trust you? guillaumeb May 2015 #250

What is an example of #1? Oktober May 2015 #62

to refer back to number one: guillaumeb May 2015 #67

belief != lack of belief 0rganism May 2015 #93

Call it lack of belief, or affirmation of non-belief, guillaumeb May 2015 #156

No, lack of belief is NOT belief. beam me up scottie May 2015 #159

Fine. I will substitute assume in all future debate. guillaumeb May 2015 #160

Oh you'll be reminded. beam me up scottie May 2015 #163

I used them to make a point guillaumeb May 2015 #171

But you never provided examples of your stereotype. beam me up scottie May 2015 #174

My examples were drawn from responses here on DU. guillaumeb May 2015 #251

Well some people are going to be angry TBF May 2015 #260

Excellent points guillaumeb May 2015 #261

unfortunately this is more than a semantic distinction 0rganism May 2015 #242

Well said. beam me up scottie May 2015 #264

This is an old game... Oktober May 2015 #96

It's a hereditary disease. yallerdawg May 2015 #100

A mind virus... nt haikugal May 2015 #152

You're close but no cigar. God lives in the Milky Way...or should I say A Milky Way. BlueJazz May 2015 #148

I love Ovaltine. Jamastiene May 2015 #184

Many Beliefs? padfun May 2015 #122

And what is your response to manipulative con artists like Pat Robertson or Ken Ham? gregcrawford May 2015 #125

I sometimes wonder if Ken Hamm really believes it... Oktober May 2015 #210

What about Aliens? It could be Aliens and this planet is a science experiment. Just sayin' freshwest May 2015 #144

Do you have proof that those atheist actually exist? beam me up scottie May 2015 #135

atheists who feel that their "belief" that there is no creator is more valid than a person of faiths AlbertCat May 2015 #136

But saying "fundamentalist atheists" makes one sound so freakin clever! beam me up scottie May 2015 #179

Maybe the term "devout atheist" would be more accurate world wide wally May 2015 #94

"devout" implies belief beam me up scottie May 2015 #158

to me dead_head May 2015 #111

a person who would'nt change their set of beliefs AlbertCat May 2015 #138

Wow, so much wrong with that post I don't know where to start. beam me up scottie May 2015 #173

If god actually showed up on the six o'clock news rather than on a piece of toast.... truebrit71 May 2015 #268

there really aren't many of those samsingh May 2015 #133

Evidently it's a person who insists science must be taught in science classes Major Nikon May 2015 #178

Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. PeaceNikki May 2015 #14

Only certain statements QED May 2015 #65

He is the asshole 1939 May 2015 #172

Never in my life have I seen the scenario you describe, ronnie624 May 2015 #226

Only times 1939 May 2015 #256

Anyone who doesn't agree with them. Jamastiene May 2015 #189

?? We have a secular society. We aren't the UK, where the monarch is "Defender of the Faith." WinkyDink May 2015 #27

If this is a secular society, guillaumeb May 2015 #36

It is. It's a secular society where the Christians have great power and privilege PeaceNikki May 2015 #43

I am a believer, but I absolutely agree with you guillaumeb May 2015 #48

Yes, we can agree on that. PeaceNikki May 2015 #49

It has not always been this way - TBF May 2015 #50

Thank you. Jamastiene May 2015 #194

They act like we're questioning some long held TBF May 2015 #209

I don't see atheists sawing people's heads off... backscatter712 May 2015 #57

Yes but we're annoying and that's just as bad as religious fundamentalism. beam me up scottie May 2015 #177

yeah, it's okay Roy Rolling May 2015 #90

+1. Good manners... ms liberty May 2015 #108

^^^^^ This! +1. n/t ColesCountyDem May 2015 #137

It's oxymoron time, kiddies! valerief May 2015 #91

Yes, it's acceptable. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #126

absolutely samsingh May 2015 #131

What is a 'fundamentalist type atheist?' haikugal May 2015 #142

Easy. beam me up scottie May 2015 #157

We have the ability to express ourselves and don't feel compelled to sit down and shut up! haikugal May 2015 #165

And for that we get called fundamentalists, militant, radical blah blah blah beam me up scottie May 2015 #169

Amazing isn't it? haikugal May 2015 #170

And yet, if someone drew a bunch of cartoons of "uppity atheists" Warren DeMontague May 2015 #187

No, but I'd sure give them a dirty look. beam me up scottie May 2015 #190

I burned out most of my irritatation after Charlie Hebdo. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #191

I was accused of "cheering" for Geller today. beam me up scottie May 2015 #192

She's an ass Warren DeMontague May 2015 #195

I believe most people can control their violent tendencies. beam me up scottie May 2015 #196

Good point. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #198

They were told by the pope recently that it's cool to respond to insults with violence. PeaceNikki May 2015 #213

Anyone who refuses to listen to preaching Jamastiene May 2015 #197

"incitement" = "saying something that pisses someone off". Warren DeMontague May 2015 #186

Yes, and people don't think twice about it cemaphonic May 2015 #207

History has been filled with bloodshed from atheists responding to attacks against them. Arugula Latte May 2015 #245

I don't actively seek to offend anyone, but that's just me. Fundamentalist extremists of all sorts uppityperson May 2015 #2

It's the meek, I'll follow this religion's rules just so they don't get offended attitude. FLPanhandle May 2015 #4

That makes more sense, thank you. Not "we should" but "we should not be afraid to". uppityperson May 2015 #9

That's what happens when Itype out a quick topic in between other stuff FLPanhandle May 2015 #12

K&R! n/t RKP5637 May 2015 #31

That I do agree with, much better stated! n/t ms liberty May 2015 #110

I agree. Fundamentalists of all types are the problem. I don't understand why our first liberal_at_heart May 2015 #82

I agree fully. RiverNoord May 2015 #101

It depends on your experiences. Jamastiene May 2015 #199

Confronting some fundamentalists only fuels their anger and hatred. I'm not saying those in places liberal_at_heart May 2015 #255

I agree Renew Deal May 2015 #97

If you imagine that is all Geller and her sympathizers are advocating for, you are mistaken. Jefferson23 May 2015 #5

This is not really about Geller FLPanhandle May 2015 #8

This is your response to that? Why not say you do not agree and leave it there, why speak Jefferson23 May 2015 #13

It might be legal and protected, but a civil society needs respect and TOLERANCE. KittyWampus May 2015 #6

Does it matter what one group or another finds offensive? FLPanhandle May 2015 #11

Your argument is somewhat juvenile. Buzz Clik May 2015 #20

So you approve of police brutality edhopper May 2015 #29

do you approve of using the word "thug" on DU even after some members have objected? KittyWampus May 2015 #38

No I object to it edhopper May 2015 #64

If a religious fuckstick finds certain imagery offensive, they can not look at it seveneyes May 2015 #40

so gay teens who are subjected to taunts should just ignore it. KittyWampus May 2015 #54

Yes, because if they don't, they are being intolerant of someone's "sincere religious belief"... Humanist_Activist May 2015 #60

So you made us all endure years of Phelps, Robertson and the various Archbishops shouting in Bluenorthwest May 2015 #42

-I- made "you all" endure years of Phelps? You object to hate speech by engaging in it against me KittyWampus May 2015 #58

No-one is "engaging in hate speech against you" muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #73

I was accused of something not even remotely true in an incredibly hateful, vile manner. KittyWampus May 2015 #77

Criticism and an accusation are not 'hate', and there was nothing 'vile' in the post muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #84

Of course the 'you' was meant generally, as in straight religious folks, but you yourself defended Bluenorthwest May 2015 #228

You obviously do not know what hate speech really is. Jamastiene May 2015 #200

Results of your Jury Service beam me up scottie May 2015 #66

As a moderate reader, I am offended by "romance novels". Binkie The Clown May 2015 #55

Go head Binkie, go start a thread calling black men "thugs". KittyWampus May 2015 #59

I do not believe that, so why would I say it? Binkie The Clown May 2015 #70

Religion is a stone around the neck of humanity... Oktober May 2015 #211

Well, go ahead and do it then. Provoke. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #7

People who cannot handle viewpoints different than their own? cwydro May 2015 #16

No one here is excusing their behavior. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #19

"Have to"? But they do with with impugnity. Buzz Clik May 2015 #22

No, you're right. Let's not aggravate people who believe in extreme ideologies. Yorktown May 2015 #185

I think that limiting it to religions is small potatoes, and ignores relevant consistency in our own LanternWaste May 2015 #15

It's not "okay" to provoke anyone. Buzz Clik May 2015 #17

Yes it is. FLPanhandle May 2015 #25

Legal? Usually. Buzz Clik May 2015 #39

Religious fundamentalists are the enemy FLPanhandle May 2015 #45

What's the point of riling people up? treestar May 2015 #21

But they can impose rules even without a law FLPanhandle May 2015 #30

Everyone's got to choose whether they want to make Mohamed drawings or not treestar May 2015 #143

to affect change PeaceNikki May 2015 #37

Roe v. Wade is still the law treestar May 2015 #145

Wow, really?? What good is Roe v Wade if there's no access? PeaceNikki May 2015 #168

how in the world can you say something like that when, each and every day, for years, there niyad May 2015 #258

They cannot impose their beliefs on you? progressoid May 2015 #63

Back when everyone was more religious treestar May 2015 #146

When was that? progressoid May 2015 #166

"Provoke" is, IMO, the incendiary term. To some, another's mere existence = "provocation." WinkyDink May 2015 #24

You are right, probably should have used different terms. FLPanhandle May 2015 #34

You pretty much have to go on the offensive to protect yourself Jamastiene May 2015 #203

Nothing wrong with being provocative muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #79

Yank their chain and rattle their cage at evey opportunity! I'm considering having brewens May 2015 #33

I agree, edhopper May 2015 #35

Provoke? No. Correct their errors? Absolutely. nt TBF May 2015 #51

They will call that a provocation. FiveGoodMen May 2015 #240

You make a fair point ... nt TBF May 2015 #241

Doesn't change the fact that we live in a reality where someone might kill you as a result The2ndWheel May 2015 #56

To what end? DrDan May 2015 #61

To effect change of course. FLPanhandle May 2015 #68

We also should not be afraid to allow them their personal beliefs DrDan May 2015 #72

Personal is the key word FLPanhandle May 2015 #74

You don't like them invading your space, so in turn DrDan May 2015 #78

Where I live, just being gay "provokes" them. Jamastiene May 2015 #204

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir! nt Codeine May 2015 #71

also known as my glass of wine at the end of the day rant... FLPanhandle May 2015 #76

Okay? I guess. 99Forever May 2015 #80

Why should you "actively seek to offend the religious" if they are NOT trying to force anything? whathehell May 2015 #83

If they are not trying to force anything, my OP doesn't apply FLPanhandle May 2015 #89

Always remember what Bill Maher said about Jerry Falwell: Initech May 2015 #85

Ummm, no HassleCat May 2015 #86

Jailing wingzeroday May 2015 #117

Absolutely... SidDithers May 2015 #88

This message was self-deleted by its author Renew Deal May 2015 #92

Bullshit. RiverNoord May 2015 #98

"common decency to not go out of your way to malign it in a way that's offensive to them" FLPanhandle May 2015 #102

Well, you can't go through life without offending someone, somehow. RiverNoord May 2015 #181

You have no clue. Jamastiene May 2015 #206

. PeaceNikki May 2015 #214

I may have much more of a clue than you state. RiverNoord May 2015 #219

what you don't get because of your straight privilege is that those who take offense at others who Bluenorthwest May 2015 #233

I guess that is true. RiverNoord May 2015 #271

If you are gay and get raped in my hometown, Jamastiene May 2015 #257

People have the right to be insensitive twits jcboon May 2015 #99

Shhh. They're easily offended so LiberalAndProud May 2015 #104

I agree. Keeping quiet has worked so well throughout history. Arugula Latte May 2015 #246

Once again dead_head May 2015 #105

"We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious." NanceGreggs May 2015 #112

Why? FLPanhandle May 2015 #116

Your words ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #150

Our rights as women are under attack by religious representatives. Arugula Latte May 2015 #248

There is a vast difference ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #253

The less influence religion has on this country, the better, Arugula Latte May 2015 #262

I couldn't agree more ... NanceGreggs May 2015 #263

I don't think it will be entirely eradicated, but Arugula Latte May 2015 #272

There are two issues at play: Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Bigotry. Maedhros May 2015 #114

Art throughout history has offended. FLPanhandle May 2015 #118

I disagree. Chemisse May 2015 #115

That was sort of the point of the OP FLPanhandle May 2015 #120

Here is what I disagree with: Chemisse May 2015 #123

In the case where they are imposing their doctrine... FLPanhandle May 2015 #128

A lot of Muslims interpret cartoons of the Prophet as an attack on their identity as Muslims YoungDemCA May 2015 #127

Yes, and it's a solid sign of indoctrination Yorktown May 2015 #175

yes, people have the right to behave like assholes Skittles May 2015 #124

bingo! yuiyoshida May 2015 #216

i agree samsingh May 2015 #130

I disagree. LWolf May 2015 #132

HOOAH! weissmam May 2015 #141

Yes it is. ibegurpard May 2015 #147

Hear, hear! K&R Yorktown May 2015 #161

It really isn't hard Caretha May 2015 #162

Okay? FUCK THAT. cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #167

So, bully them before they bully you. got it. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #176

You are pro 'incite to murder' AgingAmerican May 2015 #188

Fundamentalists do not have the right to sanitize reality to their particular demands. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #193

So you are pro incite to riot? AgingAmerican May 2015 #201

2 gay men hold hands walking down the street in a town full of homophobes. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #202

This message was self-deleted by its author beam me up scottie May 2015 #205

What if drawing pictures of Mohammed is CENTRAL to someone's religion, so much that it is mandatory? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #208

Atheist here: No, it is NOT "absolutely okay". Are you KingCharlemagne May 2015 #215

Why be tolerant of intolerance? Matrosov May 2015 #218

Willing to toss Judaism and Christianity under the bus too, pal, thereby achieving KingCharlemagne May 2015 #220

If you are an atheist, why do you always defend religion? Bluenorthwest May 2015 #223

Several of my students this term are Muslim and hail from places KingCharlemagne May 2015 #224

But defending your students is not the same as defending their religion. It's just not. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #236

You're tiresome. Some of my students are Muslim and some would probably qualify KingCharlemagne May 2015 #238

You put words and ideas into my mouth. You insult and provoke me as if that was your right. Why? Bluenorthwest May 2015 #273

Because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Matrosov May 2015 #232

I said Abrahamic belief systems Matrosov May 2015 #230

So is it okay for religious people to push the view that we will burn in Hell for our non-belief? Arugula Latte May 2015 #247

We'd be supporting this if Christians were the target audience. ileus May 2015 #217

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #221

Wouldn't it be great if instead of trying to provoke people to anger and violence.... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #222

A rational conversation with ISIS...or the Westboro Baptist Church... brooklynite May 2015 #225

It's worth a Hail Mary pass...... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #227

ISIS and Westboro Baptist aren't even in the same universe Renew Deal May 2015 #235

I'd say they're exactly the same. The only difference is... brooklynite May 2015 #239

I think that ignoring Geller will be a lot easier going forward.. frylock May 2015 #243

It is absolutely silly to use the word "absolutely" in this context. Orsino May 2015 #244

The going theory is apparently get the red out May 2015 #254

Until they shoot you quaker bill May 2015 #267