In a country that tolerates killing 1,000,000 Iraqis who didn't need killing, WHY is a Craig's List

[patrice]

Murder, "incredible", "shocking", blah, blah, blah . . . . ?

:shrug:

Get a clue folks:

"Christianity" is an EPIC FAILURE.

We have met the Enemy and s/he is Us.

[rcrush]

1. I notice that to.

Everytime there is a shooting people lose their shit. But no one seems to care that the US murdered millions and millions of people over the years. Or that we rape children in our secret prisons.

[Orrex]

2. You're right, and we can find any number of similar examples

Why the hell should I pay my credit card bill, when Citigroup gets to "restate" its quarterly earnings at will and get a bailout?

Why should I be punished for punching that guy in the bar, when the Federal Government waterboarded a guy 183 times?


I don't know that "Christianity" has anything to do with it, because people can be assholes regardless of creed, but it doesn't make one Proud To Be An American.

[patrice]

3. "Christianity" is, according to some, the means by which morality is communicated.

Look at the various marketing sectors represented on TV, if "Christianity" were a medicine, the patient would be rotting from within.

[Renew Deal]

6. So what does that have to do with the war or the craigs list crime?

Other than a way for you to put your hatred on display?

[patrice]

15. You don't know anything about what I feel regarding "Christianity".

Your assumption reveals your bigotry much more clearly than my OP says anything about whether I hate "Christianity" or not.

[11 Bravo]

31. "Christianity is an EPIC FAILURE" offers some small indication of your feelings, don't you think?

[patrice]

49. Did you ever love something that didn't succeed? Or do we only love that which does "succeed"?

[patrice]

60. Or is only the "successful" lovable?

[patrice]

18. P.S. Look up the definition of the word "Projection".

[MikeNearMcChord]

4. Isn't there an old saying,"You kill one or two people you are murderer

but if you kill one or two million you are conquerer." or something like that?

[Renew Deal]

5. Yay, an excuse for a bigot to bash "Christians"

Like that has anything to do with the war or the craigs list thing.

[patrice]

13. Right, nothing has anything to do with anything else.

All social phenomena are discrete independent events.

What is regarded as socially acceptable has no affect upon individual behavior.

The church that a murderer grows up in has no part in the development of its members.

Behavioral choices are completely context-less.

[The2ndWheel]

7. One is the state, the other is an individual

[patrice]

14. And, of course, neither influences the other.

The state is what it is independently from the individuals of which it is comprised.

And individuals are not influenced by the groups they live in.

[tjwash]

8. Not suprising in a country that canonizes a mass murderer like Reagan.

Bastard financed and defended slaughter and genocide in Central America, from El Salvador to Guatemala to Nicaragua, and on a MASSIVE scale. The numbers are absolutely staggering, given the size of those countries.

Hell, if a Third World leader killed just a fraction of who Reagan killed, he or she would be viewed as another Hitler. But Reagan? He not only got away with it, he survived the so-called Iran/contra scandal which in reality was a systemic cover-up. Since then, the focus on the Reagan years has gotten warmer and fuzzier, as everyone in the media likes to see the "positive" side to the Gipper now.

[cali]

10. well, I'd argue that

the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia killed far more than Reagan killed. And not that I'm defending Reagan, but you don't link to anything that substantiates your claim. I certainly see him as responsible for many deaths but more than Cambodia or Rwanda? Let's see some reputable evidence.

[Thothmes]

19. Or like Johnson

36,000 Americans, 3 million vietnames. Reagan was a piker compared to LBJ. Like Johnson, he got away with it too.

[cali]

9. critical thinking failure- on many levels. Let's play.

first of all, where are your quotes from? please link. not saying that some people haven't said that, but here's the drill; when using quotes you need to attribute them to someone. On the tubes that means a link.

What exactly does "Christianity" have to do with the subject at hand, and why do like to abuse poor little quotation marks?

Let's go further. People generally- and I'm not defending this, look at war differently than they do murder. Murders of young beautiful women, have histrically captured the public imagination.

As for the Pogo quote, again, how does that fit in.

Another contender for silly DU OP of the day- though you have some very stiff competition.

[patrice]

16. Opinions not allowed? That would also exclude the post to which I am replying now.

[closeupready]

11. Ah, but wait! Iraqi's are brown.

You didn't think of that, did you? :sarcasm:

On edit, not sure if the sarcasm smilie was needed.

[lucretia54]

34. And our president says, speaking about torture, that the United States...

has lost "our moral bearings" yet he continues the Bush policy of rendition, sends more drones to bomb nameless, faceless targets in Pakistan, and signs contracts to continue sending more mercenaries to Iraq to take on the job of our soldiers, among other things.

[lucretia54]

35. Oops, this was supposed to be a reply to original message, sorry!

[patrice]

54. I know. I'm not happy about any of that shit. And I don't have any answers other than

for individual persons to do what they can to begin to create something else.

[Javaman]

12. It's the lasted in a string of "hollaway" type news stories...

she was blond and pretty so she deserved national attention. :sarcasm:

now on the flip side we have an attractive blond guy who kills people, but because he is blond and attractive, there is just no possible way he could have killed someone, right?

That's how it's being pushed in the msm. if you read the now many articles regarding this case, this guy, from the evidence the police have presented and what appears to be a good amount of footwork, this guy better have one hell of an alibi to get out of this.

And because his also blond and attractive girlfriend/fiance' is professing undying devotion/disbelief and keeps carrying on and on about the summer wedding (that she probably is planning to within an inch of it's life), it will get all sorts of play from every angle possible up to and including childhood friends who will talk about his community service to the old and how he used to chew and regurgitate worms for abandoned baby birds.

But you know, because he's not of the ethnic variety, the type that is usually tried and convicted by the MSM before any evidence is presented, I fully expect a media circus to ensue to keep this guy on the front page for the very useful reason of distraction for the mouth breathers of this nations to follow ad nausum instead of more pressing matters that actually effect their well fair.

[patrice]

17. Why so many defenders of ChurchCo in this thread?

Do you all really intend to say that this great and vaunted "Christian" nation is a spiritual success?

[cbc5g]

22. Well first off it's not a Christian nation

Secondly, the Iraq war was about resource control and a failed ideology that believed we should spread democracy by force. It wasn't about christians vs muslims. But if you want to talk about rights and practices in countries controlled by religion, go to an arabic nation and report back on the great conditions and freedoms you get there. All violent religion and extremism is to blame, not just Christianity.

[ASUliberal]

25. I don't think people are saying Christianity is the only bad egg...

They are simply focusing in on it in the topic. And it's a legitimate argument. We've gone into the middle east, broken down countries and installed puppet states of the US. On top of that we are also encouraging Christian conversion in the region.

Instead of letting the local citizens to choose their own respective religions, we are constantly trying to cram christian/democracy/theocracy down their throats.

Go ask Ann Coulter what I'm talking about...

[cbc5g]

28. Err well I don't think we are cramming Christianity down their throats

But you are correct that it was wrong to go in and disrupt their sovereignty. It's all about resource dominance and trying to be big dog on the world stage. Ann Coulter doesn't represent this country, Barack Obama represents this country.

Now, I can see one area where Christianity may be to blame and that is the fact that western Christianity has had a philosophy of using up the Earth and taking advantage of what 'God' gave them. To that end, Christianity is somewhat to blame for resource exploitation which led to cultural exploitation. But if not for that philosophy, we would likely not be talking right now or have the technologies, rights and knowledge that we do now. Is it worth it? It's a tough call.

[patrice]

59. How can you answer the question of whether it is/was "worth it" unless you have

some way of recognizing what it cost? i.e. what DIDN'T happen, what we LOST, because of our "decisions".

[patrice]

27. I was referring to the fact that "Christians" say its a Christian nation. And yes, the Invasion of

Iraq is about controlling a resource, if you're a policy maker. If you're john doe the war hinges, as you said, on whether we "should" ____________________. That's a moral/ethical statement. Do you seriously suggest ordinary people make decisions about whether they should kill or support others who kill without thinking about whether doing so is moral act or not? Either way you answer that question prooves my point.

[ASUliberal]

30. I'm not sure what your point is...

The question should not be is the US a Christian nation. The real question is should the US be a Christian nation. The answer is no. But I'm also not willing to live in a delusion that the US has not been infiltrated by Christian radicalism. To say otherwise is simply incorrect.

One tool of controlling a society/resource is imposing religion on the people. If the US government is set on truly controlling the middle east, a major action that needs to be taken is to remove dissenting religion and install Christianity. It's a trend that has been going on sense the first crusades. And we can very clearly see that occurring in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So while the goal of the US government is not necessarily to impose Christianity on the region, doing so will make it much easier to obtain the actual goal, resources.

[patrice]

40. I live in a red state where politicians do not succeed unless they are "Christian"

A major church controls our large affluent suburb. No one succeeds politically around here without passing muster with the local churches and so-called "Pro-Lifers".

I don't think America is Christian. I think it is "Christian"; it is called "Christian" in the same way that I can call myself "beautiful" (ha!).

Evangelism is something about which the early Christian church disagreed and there are still some very serious Christian scholars who still reject it.

You're right, though, that IS what has been going on; the U.S. exports religion along with business = control.

[cbc5g]

36. Doesn't matter if they do or not

If their society does and authority figures do, they do.

The Milgram experiment for example.

"The Milgram experiment was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)<1> of experiment participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Only one participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks before the 300-volt level."

And that was just from a guy in a labcoat telling them what to do. Imagine being on a battlefield around your friends and you are being ordered to fire. That number soon jumps to 40 of 40.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[ASUliberal]

42. Now I get your point...

But it's a moot point none the less. And here is why.

The Milgram experiment proved one thing. That people in pressured situations that provide little empirical information will do what they are told. But after years and years of fighting, the pressure has wained, and the evidence is clear as day. The excuse that I was simply doing what I was told becomes less valid the longer someone is exposed to the situation.

So if you are trying to imply that soldiers are just doing what they are told, than you are denying that there are soldiers who go AWOL or file as a conscientious objector. They are informed of the situation. While ignorance of a situation is an excuse, willful ignorance is not.

That's not to say that all soldiers are informed well of the situation. But that excuse holds less validity with each passing day.

[patrice]

57. I taught Psychology for 8 years.

The difference between Milgram's subjects and a guy on the battlefield in Iraq is the context. The contexts make the decisions different from one another. A more legitimate comparison of the two would be Milgram's setup compared to deciding whether to go into a recruiter's office, same level of authority, but one with a more immediate action and the other with a postponed action.

[patrice]

63. And the corellary of that alternative comparison of Milgram and Iraq would be:

Milgram's experiment would be comparable to being on the battlefield in Iraq if both "the teacher" and "the student" were quizzing one another on some complex sets of factors, simultaneously, and both were also wired to lethal electric shock generators. Otherwise, as I said earlier, it's not the same decision.

[and-justice-for-all]

20. I hear ya!! nt

[cbc5g]

21. selective empathy

[ASUliberal]

23. Well it should be shocking but not in the way most see it as...

It should be shocking because we are now reaping the consequences of the society we've created. This is a wake up call to change our ways.

[cbc5g]

24. Because we have a stable society that isn't torn apart by war death and famine

So small things that undermine that stability shocks us to the core.

[patrice]

29. Small? Again, you proove my point.

If one has no value, a million ones don't have any value either.

[patrice]

32. Stable? What's your employment history?

[cbc5g]

38. If you think this isn't a stable society compared to others

Sorry, you aren't worth debating, really.

[patrice]

45. I don't live in other societies. Talk about falling to the lowest common denominator . . .

As long as we are "better" than Somolia?

wow.

Speaking of not being worth debating. . .

[malaise]

26. Why?

Plueeeeeeeeez A middle class blonde preppie, who is a young republican and a pre-med student is the suspect.

All those dead brown 'islamist' Iraqis deserved to die! :sarcasm:

[Occam Bandage]

33. What does this have to do with Christianity?

[ASUliberal]

37. I think the implication is that we only care about christian deaths

and let 1,000,000 Iraqis die because they were not christian.

[Occam Bandage]

39. How is that a fault of Christianity?

That's a bit like saying that low melanin levels are an "epic failure" because some white folk care more about the abduction and murder of little Caitlin or Molly than they do about the abduction and murder of little Kiara or Jazmine.

[patrice]

46. Do not a significant number of Americans claim that Christianity is THE moral arbiter of oursociety?

[Occam Bandage]

50. A significant number of Americans claim many things that are incorrect.

Do you accept their belief that Christianity is central to American society? The fact that you would judge Christianity based on the actions of Americans as a whole suggests that you do. Personally, I reject the notion that American society is Christian society. I think many things that are compatible with Christianity are incompatible with American ideals, and vice versa.

[patrice]

55. There is a significant minority who say it is and are mistaken and that is a Powerful fact.

I did say elsewhere that I don't think America is Christian. I think it is "Christian".

Why doesn't anyone dig "special usage" anymore?

[cbc5g]

41. Because we are the good guys and they are the bad guys

There's your answer, enjoy.

[patrice]

43. I wish you'd stand over a crushed and mutilated child and look into its lifeless eyes and say that.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Do you make a habit of doing that?

How chilling.

[patrice]

47. No. "We" do. That's what War is.

[Occam Bandage]

51. If we all do that, then why would you bother wishing for someone to?

[patrice]

56. Because he speaks as though he isn't.

[patrice]

48. You, sir, are all coked up on "good" and "bad".

[LostInAnomie]

52. That is a fantastic example of a non sequitur.

[patrice]

58. Just because you don't see the connections and I did not delineate them does not mean that they

are not there.

Actually, your post is the non sequitur: "I cannot see it. Someone did not state it. Therefore, it is not there."

Every hear of sub-atomic physics? Well, I'm no Steven Hawking, so I guess sub-atomic physics doesn't exist either.

[LostInAnomie]

61. I don't think you know what a non sequitur is.

The Iraqis were not killed because of Christianity.

The Craig's list killer did not kill because of Christianity.

The outrage and coverage over both are not related whatsoever to Christianity.

Therefore, it does not follow (non sequitur) to say "Christianity is an EPIC FAILURE" since it does not relate to the actual topic at hand except in the most tangential way.

[patrice]

62. According to "Christians", "Christianity" defines & enforces morality. Morality fails, ergo

"Christianity" fails in its definition and enforcement of its own moral code.

Iraqis were not killed BECAUSE of Christianity. They were killed for a whole host of other reasons and those reasons were sufficient to kill for, because "Christianity" is an EPIC FAILURE.

Iraqis were killed for other rationalizations because "Christian" morality does not work. If "Christian" morality did work, Christians would have refused to kill Iraqis despite whatever other rationalizations were provided to them. There would have been no "becauses" that would have worked if "Christianity" had made them moral people, as it claims is its responsibility. It failed at what it claims to be its purpose, ergo they failed at being Christians and found all kinds of reasonable "becauses" for their War.

The Craig's list killer, killed because he is an immoral person. To the extent that it is "Christianity's" job to teach people how to be moral and to the extent that the Craig's list killer came from a "Christian" family, "Christianity" failed the Craig's list killer. He also did not kill BECAUSE of Christianity; "Christianity" failed to make him moral, so he killed because he likes it, or because he hates women, or because .....

According to "Christianity", the self-proclaimed arbiter of all things moral, it is the source of right and wrong, ergo, people would not be outraged by wrong/evil if they were not "Christian". Based on their logic, the outrage is a byproduct of conventional "Christian" morality. The coverage is a byproduct of the outrage, because outrage sells.

People could (and do) choose to do all sorts of bad things BECAUSE of all sorts of reasons: because it makes them rich, because they get to fuck whoever, because they enjoy something, because ____________. Like War, they don't do these bad behaviors because of "Christianity", they have all kinds of reasons for what they do and they engage in the behaviors BECAUSE of these many other reasons, because "Christian" morality is a failure.

As I said in my previous post, saying something doesn't relate or doesn't follow, doesn't make it so.

[LostInAnomie]

64. No, your argument doesn't relate because it's full of illogical leaps.

You are basing your argument on the fact that Christianity is the majority religion in the US and therefore is the basis for our morality as a people. This is demonstrably false. You take it a step farther though by claiming that because Christianity isn't the basis for our morality or actions it is a failure. This is also a fallacious argument. People make moral choices for a whole host of reasons. Religious beliefs only play a small role in that process. One could just as easily claim the because Christianity isn't the basis for our morality or actions, we are failures.

You also seem to have the idea that we live in some kind of moral vacuum where the decisions we make are based on only one factor, instead of a complex analysis of our own values.

You have chosen to single out Christianity, but the exact same argument you have made could be made with any number of philosophies (democracy, secularism, humanism, the free market, etc.). It's just a matter of how far you are willing to stretch the argument. It seems that you are willing to stretch it extremely far.

The soldiers killed Iraqis in the war, not because of a failure of Christianity, but because they made a complex decision based upon factors like survival, duty, their own ideas of patriotism, etc.

The Craig's List Killer didn't kill because Christianity failed to make him moral. He killed because more than likely he is insane.

Your argument about the outrage doesn't make much sense, and I doubt many Christians would make the argument that Christianity is the "arbiter of all things moral". They would probably say God does that job. They also wouldn't say that other don't have a sense of their own morality or are incapable of feeling moral outrage. They would just say that it's not based on the right philosophy.

[SoCalDem]

53. "Boy next door"... medical student by day-murderer by night

hookers
kinky sex
internet

need you ask more?:rofl: