For the "not all christians are fundamentalists" file.

[Inland]

Coincidentally two articles from today's paper. Carter saying he is evangelical, not fundamentalist, and the Vatican backing science and denouncing fundamentalism. Yeah, I know, they have their OWN problems.....


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511...


Cardinal: Faithful can't shun science
Vatican targets fear of secular reasoning

By Nicole Winfield
Associated Press
Published November 4, 2005


VATICAN CITY -- A Roman Catholic cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture at the Vatican, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.


**********

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511...

Carter: Policy by religion has nation at risk
Admitting that his presidency was flawed, he takes the White House to task in his first `political' book

By William Neikirk
Washington Bureau
Published November 4, 2005

************

"My guess is that the people who have executed these changes don't disagree with what I have written in the book," he said. "They think they are absolutely right. That's one of the characteristics of fundamentalism--`I think I am right because I am close to God and anybody who disagrees with me is inherently wrong and therefore inferior.'"

Carter, a Southern Baptist who describes himself as a evangelical Christian, said he is neither doubting nor criticizing President Bush's Christian beliefs, but had to speak out on "radical" changes in U.S. policy.

************************

[beam me up scottie]

1. Don't you mean the "Don't blame us, they're not real christians" file?

Or the "Obvious Red Herring" file?

[Inland]

2. Or the "Posting Anthing Attracts Shameless Flamebait" file.

Sorry to post something contrary to your most deeply held beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

3. I'm glad you realize this thread is flamebait.

I wasn't going to go that far, thanks for doing it for me.

:hi:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

8. The other side being reason and logic.

As opposed to the fundamentalists who paint us as anti-god, anti-religion, or the ones on DU who prefer "christian haters".

BTW, have you considered posting links that actually work ?

It would be a little less damning since you are inferring that DUers need to be told that all christians aren't fundamentalists.

[Inland]

10. The same coin of prickly sensitivity and justification by victimization.

Suddenly it's "damning" to post info on religion in the religion and theology section, is it?

Like the fundies, you look so hard for reasons to be offended and pretend persecution, thinking it makes you righteous.

Where you can't find a reason, you make one up.

What a bore.

[beam me up scottie]

11. You just can't help it, can you?

Using insults and hyperbole when questioned, that is.

If that's all you've got to defend yourself, I've made my point.

But for next time:

F L A M E B A I T = inference of ignorance

[Inland]

14. Can't help telling you the truth? No, and stop expecting me to quit it.

It isn't hyperbole.

You imagine a slight, get offended, I say you've no right to pretend some offense, and from that you say I don't "defend myself".

You go from inventing a slight to declaring victory, all imagined in a Pavlovian response to an article that, because it contained quotes from christians, stimulated the portion of your brain that contains all your issues.

Flip side of the fundie coin. Same reaction, same tactics, same dead end.

[beam me up scottie]

15. What articles? Your links don't work, remember?

And it's obvious that you are the one who doesn't read, since I've stated that I was referring to your subject line.

And apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[Inland]

17. Yeah, everyone else is offended, too. Look at the crowds.

So tired of the "I'm offended, look how I'm angry, therefore you must validate my feelings by acknowledging me." It's a bore when the fundies do it. And you can't seem to top.

Go google the articles, if the links don't work.

[beam me up scottie]

18. "Go google the articles, if the links don't work."

Thanks for proving my point.

This thread was all about your subject line, not the articles.

:eyes:

[Inland]

22. Um......You mean, that's what YOU chose as your "raison de offense"

After three or four posts, you've decided that you have to find something to back up your initial response of completely inappropriate pavlovian reaction of dumping your usual set of issues.

After all, your goal is to be offended and to use it as justification. It's the fundie way.

And it doesn't prove your point. I don't know why the links don't work. But you can find them on the Trib website, if you care. In fact, you can find them posted elsewhere, but because your types deal in apolcalyptic struggles with perceived enemies, you haven't been loading up those threads with your issues.

Flip side of the coin.

[trotsky]

23. "Your types"?

Nice broadbrush there, Inland. Way to show us "flip side" fundamentalist atheists just how noble and better you are.

[Inland]

28. The shoe fits. Nice and snug.

It isn't a broad brush, but carefully tailored to BMUS's particular tactic of taking offense and pretending virtue from it.

Those that do it, do it.

I could go on, but that's what's in evidence here. Other threads may have other examples.

[trotsky]

Wow, so you're proud of your prejudices.

Rare that someone on DU comes out and admits it like that. Good for you, I guess.

[Inland]

31. What's the difference between a prejudice and a judgment?

A judgment comes after I see BMUS actually do it.

A prejudice is someone assuming the purpose of a thread from a "past posting history".

Which one fits you?

Another ring a ding on the irony meter. Really, you guys should read your own posts. It's the flip side of the fundie coin.

[trotsky]

33. Um, Inland...

it was you that referred to "BMUS's particular tactic", which means YOU'RE referring to supposed "past posting history" too.

Now would that be a ding on your irony meter, or mine? What a flip side, indeed!

[Inland]

39. Did you edit your post to Kwassa?

Somebody referred to my "past posting history". That wasn't you referrring to my past posting history?

Anyway, that's what my reference was to.

As for BMUS, the point remains: it isn't prejudice when I'm watching him do it. It's just judgment. And spot on, too, IMO.

Flip side of the coin.

[trotsky]

40. And that's hypocrisy.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Hypocrisy and inability to properly use the word "prejudice".

How can I be intolerant of a subject line? :shrug:

[trotsky]

43. Probably the same way we have "faith" that god doesn't exist.

:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

44. I wonder what it's like in their world...

The planet Make-Up-Shit-As-You-Go-Along must be a fun vacation spot.

[Inland]

48. Well, we see faith win out over reason, reality again. The flip side.

1) You pretend to know my "past post history", so you can divine a meaning out of a post that isn't there...you don't have to read it to know, and in fact, reading is besides the point. That's prejudice.

2) I look at what BMUS actually posted, and called it what it was. Judgment. You can disagree, but there's something to be said about referrring to something actually there when making judgments. It's something to look at, and judge, rather than taking it on faith and prejudice.

If one's faith is strong enough, I suppose, one sees or doesn't see all sorts of things. True believers. What a plague.

[trotsky]

54. You've lost me, Inland.

Faith wins? Eh?

You attack me for noting what you've actually posted before - your posting history - and call me prejudicial.

You defend yourself by claiming you're just noting what BMUS posted.

When you apply a different set of standards to someone other than yourself, you're a hypocrite.

And all the while you've got your fingers in your ears screaming, "Flip side! Atheists have faith! Nyah nyan nyah!" Yep, faith wins. I've seen lots of kids on the elementary school playground declare victory similarly.

[Inland]

59. Typical. Your claims are as good as any other, mine are

simply prejudice. It's all about who is making the claims, and never about the actual facts of the matter.

Not much different than the faith based crowd.

After all, if I use a term to describe BMUS posts that actually fit his posts, that's not prejudice. That's judgment.

And when your preconceptions of me cause you to misread my posts to mean something offensive, that's not judgment. It's prejudice, leading you to perceive something that isn't there.

See, the standard is, "what's really there" and not "what somebody pretends is there" or "what I really, really strongly believe is there." I don't make concessions about shit I am seeing with my own eyes even if you or a fundie or anyone else has talked himself into a deeply held set of misconceptions, whatever they may be. There's your single standard for you. The rest follows.

[trotsky]

68. What's prejudice is referring to others as "your type".

Wiggle all you want, the evidence is right there upthread.

[Inland]

70. Again, your prejudices causes you to preceive an offense where there isn't

How many times do you have to do this?

What does "your type" mean? Whites? Americans? Atheists?

It means the type of person that pretends victimization as a form of justification. BMUS, you, and the fundies are all of a type.

That's reality. But your type isn't interested in reality. You're interested in scoring points, thinking that being offended gives you some sort of self righteous anger and justification, and then gives you a bonding moment where you and yours congratulate each other. You and BMUS may not bow your heads and sing Kumbaya, but you might as well.

It's not my obligation to edit everything so that it's impossible for you to apply your prejudices and desire to take offense. Your interest is to parlay it into a self righteous lather, and nobody can shame you into stopping, clearly. All I can do is point out the reality for you to ignore.

And I'll keep doing just that, to you and the rest of your type.

Of course, your type always misperceives anything. The prejudiced type.

[trotsky]

72. Thank you for being the perfect illustration

of what you rail against. I don't know that I could have said it any better.

[Inland]

73. Well, that' the thing about your type.

It isn't as if your mind is going to be changed by what you, or anyone else, actually says or does. It isn't about reality. It's about your prejudices and your warped perceptions.

So you see what you want, and can't add to it by referring to reality.

Are we done? Prejudices and self righteousness is such a dead end, given that it's merely a response of "Me good, you bad", and playing the victim is so annoying, and you and the fundies really can't be shamed into getting off the endless loop. Can you and BMUS go off and congratulate each other now, go take on the flip side of the coin and leave the rest of us out? Golly, thanks so much.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Are you unable to find links that work and edit your post?

My apologies.

I didn't realize the error was attributable to incompetence and not bias.

[Inland]

30. How open minded of you! nt

[beam me up scottie]

57. Actually, let's just look at my first post and why your claim is false.

beam me up scottie (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-04-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Don't you mean the "Don't blame us, they're not real christians" file?

Or the "Obvious Red Herring" file?

The first sentence is in reference to the posters on DU who insist that the fundamentalists are NOT "real" christians.

Nowhere did I reference the actual articles, most likely because your links didn't work and I was unable to put them in context.



The second sentence calls your subject line what it is, an inference that people on DU believe that all christians are fundamentalists.

A red herring, IOW.

Again, nothing at all about the quotes or the articles.




So, in response, you posted yet ANOTHER red herring and have gone on to build a straw man out of them instead of actually addressing the issue, which was with your subject line.


The stench is overpowering.

[Inland]

60. Why not just wear the decoder ring and decipher the Hidden Message?

Really, you sound a little nutty. You seem to think that I was hiding a message just for the purpose of you reading it and overreacting. I could say I wasn't, but your Decoder Ring would probably translate the message into a confession that I killed Kennedy.

Let's just say that if you don't want to pick up any "messages" from me, feel free to put me on ignore, wear tin foil and thwart my evil plan. Serve me right.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Why not just admit you were wrong when you posted this:

Inland (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-04-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Posting a Jimmy Carter quote is flamebait? "Shameless"

was a word that I chose carefully.

In this case, the mere quoting of the opinions of christians has brought all your issues to the fore. Jimmy Carter critcizes Bush, the Vatican backs science, but everybody wait while BMUS let's us know....again....that his bigotries and prejudices mean that he doesn't care.

You are the other side of the fundie coin.

You accused me of bigotry and prejudice because I questioned the inference in your subject line?

I never once mentioned the quotes or the people who were quoted.

I won't wait around for you to acknowledge the slight.

I'll just be satisfied that the hypocrisy and bigotry is on display.

;)

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

64. The fact that I didn't mention the rest proves that I didn't mention it.

And yet you see some hidden motive behind my not mentioning it.



Run!

Run and hide before the evil BMUS doesn't mention something else!

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

74. "Hidden motive".

ONe would think you didn't mention it because you didn't care what it said. That's not claming a "hidden motive". That's claiming a motive that's not hidden, in that it is evidenced by your post. What does it mean when someone makes a flamebait response while ignoring the substance of the post? What can one infer from that reality? Nothing good.

Whereas I get accused of motives and meanings that aren't in evidence at all, but reside merely in the presumptions and prejudices of a guy whose got other issues with other people. Another faith based community. The other side of the coin from the fundies.

And there's no way to argue with the true believers, because there's only reality to point to, and if that were important to you, you would have stopped trying to cloak yourself in grievances.

[beam me up scottie]

13. And still no working links.

It figures.

Considering your subject line, I guess the context of the quotes isn't necessary.

[trotsky]

4. Hmm, I don't recall anyone ever saying that all Christians were fundies.

So I'm not sure who has to file this one away. Maybe the fundies who will come hunt down the liberal Christians right after they finish off us non-Christians.

[Inland]

6. Well, you can't be everywhere, can you?

But for those lesser lights that fail to make the distinction, they might find it interesting.

[trotsky]

7. Nope, but you don't have to start a post with an inflammatory subject.

How about "Diverse Christian Thought" or "Christians Criticize Fundamentalism"?

[Inland]

9. Umm.......Inflammatory subject?

First you imply it's something everbody already knows, and then you tell me it's inflammatory.

It's two articles from the Tribune, one on religion and science, another on religion and politics......

I posted in the Religion and Theology forum.........

Two pretty reasonable sets of quotes.........

Jimmy Carter bashing Bush.......

Vatican backing science........

I don't even see how it's controversial.

[trotsky]

12. Oh come on now.

Your choice of subject line implies that you think it's common for people to label all Christians as fundamentalists. In this forum, on DU, I don't know. But that's clearly what I understood, and evidently I wasn't alone in that impression. Why not a subject line similar to the other suggestions I made? Your responses to this point have basically confirmed to me that you were not only looking to post those links, but also to pick a fight of sorts.

[Inland]

16. Actually, it DOES seem you were alone.

I don't know where you get the implication from, and it does seem that you were very, very, very alone in getting it.

As to picking a fight, I can't imagine who would think it was picking a fight. Besides Bushies and fundamentalists, who were the subjects of the posts. The "implication that everyone doesn't know that not all christians are fundamentalists already" is pretty silly stuff. For one, not everybody knows it already. For two, it's a distinction that was made in the articles themselves, indicating it's news to somebody.

So your objection is duly noted, but I dont' for a minute believe it's what is really attracting your ire.

[trotsky]

19. You don't have to believe me,

but it's the truth. And you can belittle me all you want, that doesn't change the impression I got from your subject line and your past posting history. Your inability or lack of desire to explain why you didn't choose a more descriptive or appropriate subject line is noted, though.

[kwassa]

20. give it a rest.

I concur with Inland that both you and BMUS look for a fight where none is intended.

[trotsky]

21. Shocking post of the day.

:sarcasm:

[beam me up scottie]

24. "looking" ?

Is "looking" the same thing as questioning posts from DU christians who refuse to respect non believers?

[kwassa]

34. Can you stay on topic without attempting to divert it?

[beam me up scottie]

37. On topic? " both you and BMUS look for a fight where none is intended."

Who is guilty of diversion?

Or is accusing other members of disrupting considered staying "on topic"?

[kwassa]

45. It is your M.O., BMUS

Characteristic of many things you post, trying to pick a fight with believers for no substantive reason.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Like refusing to accept someone's definition of themselves?

Oh, wait.

That's an example of disrespect.

That would be your mo.

[Inland]

25. It isn't offensive.

That you can pick a subject line from which you would not take offense is neither here nor there, if the original post wasn't offensive.

I don't care that you are offended by something that isn't objectively offensive, whether because I have a "past posting history" or because I posted something that you would not post.

[trotsky]

26. It just would have been common courtesy

to edit the subject line after others voiced their objections. You don't have to understand WHY someone took offense to something to understand that they DID. That's part of being a mature, well-rounded adult.

[beam me up scottie]

29. I don't think he knows how to edit a post.

Otherwise he would repost working links to the articles he claims we're offended by.

Not everyone knows how to use the edit function but it's nice that it's there just in case.

[kwassa]

36. Why are you making insults, BMUS?

[beam me up scottie]

41. It's an assumption based on the op's refusal to post working links.

It's insulting to assume that he knows how to edit and just doesn't want to correct his mistake.

Just cutting him some slack.

[Inland]

35. Actually, to edit I WOULD have to know why.

Else I couldn't edit it properly to avoid offense.

But the fact is, the line isn't offensive, therefore what a mature, well rounded adult might do is stop complaining about it, rather than acting as my editor. I think that's a better result than my reacting to each idiosyncratic, subjective feeling of a forum with 80,000 members.

[trotsky]

38. *shrug*

Whatever you feel like doing. No matter how many people are registered at DU, or how many are actual posters, or how many read the R/T forum, or how many saw your thread. I've seen some posters change their subject line when just one person voiced their objection to it, and I've seen some who don't care if a hundred complain. It's all about how important you think it is to listen to other opinions, I guess.

[Inland]

49. I didn't listen to your opinion?

Of course, I did. I just didn't change my mind after listening. Or rather, by the time someone lighted on the title as "the reason" to get all upset, editing time was over. I wouldn't have done it anyway.

I would change my post if there was just one person giving me a good reason, and I wouldn't change it for a hundred giving me no reasons or bad reasons.

If you have a different MO, well...whatever you feel like doing.

[kwassa]

32. This subject title is not the slightest bit inflammatory

[Zenlitened]

55. I disagree. I think it's a loaded statement, suggesting that...

... "all christians are fundamentalists" is a commonly held notion here at DU. When, as best I can tell, it is not. So it sets off a discussion based on a misunderstanding... and nothing good is likely to come of that.

[kwassa]

58. "All Christians are fundamentalists" is commonly expressed notion at DU

that has brought about many angry threads by liberal Christians over the failure to make the distinction.

[Inland]

61. I don't think it's expressed commonly, but

habits of language end up failing to make the distinction, which does irritate christians, and more rarely, a complete and total ignorance of the subject matter causes people to make broader accusations than they should. Rarest of all are those few who really, really refuse to make a distinction.

But at any rate, I'm not sure why anyone whould jump on a thread because "everybody knows it" and it seems to be insulting the intelligence of DU. If that were the case, then there would be approximately 1/100th of the CIA Leak Threads, which all largely repeat the same stuff.

As an experiment, I could post a thread saying "Dear world, not all Americans support Bush" and see if a secular attempt to disassociate myself from other Americans gets a post about perceived insults.

[Zenlitened]

65. We have an "is too" and an "is not." Anyone care to throw in a...

... "maybe sometimes"?

[beam me up scottie]

66. How about a picture?

[Zenlitened]

47. Which ones are the real christians? Any consensus on that?

:shrug:

[Inland]

50. No, but then again, who expected one?

There's enough controversy over what constitutes real feta.

[Zenlitened]

51. No, there's actually been some progress in defining feta

Judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ):

To obtain the necessary data needed for a possible registration of the name "feta" as a protected designation of origin-"PDO"-or its inclusion in the list of generic names, as demanded by a majority of other Member States, the European Commission arranged for a Eurobarometer survey to be carried out, questioning 12,800 nationals of the twelve member States then making up the European Community.

It was concluded from the survey, that the name "feta" had not become the common name of the product, and that it continued to evoke a Greek origin. The name "feta" was thus registered as a PDO to cover Feta produced in Greece. Denmark, Germany and France contested the decision, on the basis that feta cheese has been produced and legally marketed under the name "feta" since 1963 in Denmark, 1981 in the Netherlands and 1985 in Germany, for example. Greece also contests the process, since sheep and/or goats milk should be used, and certain countries use cow's milk in the process.

The ECJ concluded that the Commission had played down the situation existant in the Member States other than the state of origin. The Commission whilst conducting the survey back in 1996 did not take into account all the factors at play. In order to decide whether a name has become generic or not, the situation existing in the Member State in which the name originates and in areas of consumption, together with the relevant national or Community legislation, must all be taken into account. Particularly the Commission should have taken into account the existence of similar products legally on the market. The procedure the Commission followed to determine whether the name "feta" had become generic or not was found void, hence the ECJ anulled the regulation which registered "feta" as a protected designation of origin for "feta" cheese produced in Greece.

Sheep & Goats-The essence of feta:

When the Greek government set the paramaters which have to be met in order to be able to label a cheese as feta, it clearly stated that it had to be produced from sheep's milk. A combination of sheep and goats milk may also be used in the process as long as the goat's milk does not constitute more than 30% of the milk used. This clear cut specification allows the consumer to destinguish feta from other cheese and get a specialized product, but since feta is not a PDO one can buy feta produced with partially skimmed cow's milk. Using cow's milk may produce something similar to feta cheese but it is clearly not feta cheese and has a different taste altogether. The sheep or goat's milk used in the production of feta must be obtained from animals that live and graze in the following predetermined areas: Macedonia, Thrace, Thessalia, Epiros, Sterea Hellas, Peloponese, and the island of Lesvos. All these areas are in Greece, so any other milk used, even if sheep or goats milk, that does not come from these areas does not qualify under the terms set forth by the Greek government so it can not be called feta. Greece has over 2,500 native plants and shrubs which are consumed by its sheep and goats. The different plants and shrubs consumed by the animals while grazing in the predetermined areas, allows for the milk they produce to acquire a variety of flavour and aromas and are embodied in the Greek feta cheese only.

http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/feta.htm

[Inland]

52. But not consensus!

You're talking about a government created and enforced definition----precisely the LAST analogy that christians should want!

By the way, I often buy feta imported from Bulgaria, a non-EC country. It's quite good.

[Zenlitened]

53. Well we have some pretty specific definitions regarding a human fetus...

... as provided by the judiciary branch of our government, under Roe v. Wade. I'm quite happy with that, and the fact that some christians are waging war on those definitions is precisely what alarms me. They want "god's definition" -- whatever that truly means.

:scared:

[Inland]

56. Yeah, but that's an easy one.

Even defining feta is more problematic than one a fetus is. The issue about fetuses is, what ABOUT them? which I never thought was answered by a definition.

[Zenlitened]

69. I'm sure of one thing. I don't understand your meaning in that post at all

:shrug:

[Inland]

75. The definition of what a fetus is

isn't hard, but it isn't particularly relevant, not to me.

The legal definition that you refer to, for example, doesn't really tell us what a fetus is, beyond saying that it isn't the something or other that legally protected.

I never thought that defining a fetus as human, human life, potential human life, made a lot of difference to the outcome of the debate. I'm fully able to concede that a fetus is a human life and still be pro choice. The definition of "what it is" simply doens't answer the question of "what to do".

[BiggJawn]

67. I listened to Jimmy a lot this week.

Everybody had him on, what with that new book of his hitting release.

I listened carefully, because what he was saying made SENSE, even though he was talking about something I gravely doubt exists, he was still making a reasoned and thpoughtful argument on the diferences between what he believes, and the "Jerry Foulwell Uber Alles" Lemmings...

But then, this morning on National PUTSCH Radio, he agreed with Scott Simon's characterization that the Democrats "alienated" religious people and pushed them into the waiting arms of GW "GAWD talks through me" Boosh and the Evul Geenyus.

[The Magistrate]

76. Locking

This is a flame-war.