The United States Senate recently passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA/S.909), a "Hate Crimes Bill" that provides authorities with the power to increase prosecution and punishment for crimes which were already covered under current laws but which will now receive special attention. The new American law ostensibly only covers "hate violence," but, if we look to Europe and Canada as examples of how it will truly be used, we can see that a seriously threatening can of worms has been opened. Although it sounds at first to many to be a good thing, this legislation in fact represents a slippery slope, the thin edge of the wedge, for tremendous oppression, including increased censorship based on perceived "hate speech."
Who really benefits from "hate crimes" censorship?
According to opponents, this legislation most certainly does violate the American Constitution, specifically the Fifth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as possibly the First, if we do go down that slippery "hate speech" slope. Certainly this issue must continue to be investigated in detail, and as always we must keep an eye on whether or not special deference is given as concerns what "hatred" is more acceptable than others.
Taking a closer look at some of the most obvious proponents of this type of legislation here and abroad, we can see what their objectives might be and who will benefit most from these various bills. The most glaring player on the American scene is the ADL or Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization widely known for assailing perceived "anti-Semitism" and criticism of Israel, Jews and Judaism, which is odd in consideration of the fact that this hate crimes bill was named after a young man who was viciously murdered for being gay, not Jewish. Matthew Shepard's death was obviously latched onto for the protection of other special interest groups.
Also oddly, the clarifying paragraph on the Congressional website for the bill reads:
A bill to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
What "other purposes," we must ask? For prosecuting "hate speech" as well?
We in the U.S. may assume that only those who commit heinous acts of violence will ever be charged with "hate crimes," but it is clear from recent actions in other countries that such legislation is not always confined to violent crimes.
If the U.S. follows suit with Canada and Europe, the first groups that will benefit from this hate crimes legislation will be those defending Jews, Judaism and Israel, as this legislation has been applied in those places to prosecute "Holocaust Deniers," including scholars and journalists who question the historical details of World War II. Thus, for "thought crimes" or expressions of unpopular ideas, even where there is no incitement to or commitment of violence, people are being swept up in the net of what smells like classic tyranny.
At the same time, however, it seems this legislation is not being used in Europe to prosecute Islamists who likewise deny the Holocaust, rabblerouse in favor of Hitler and call for the destruction of Israel, along with violent attacks on Israelis and other Jews. Indeed, the hate crimes legislation is being utilized in Europe to protect such Islamists from criticism of their violent speech and the ideology behind it.
For example, an English blogger who complained about violence and crime committed by Muslim immigrants ("Asians") in his neighborhood was arrested for "hate speech." Meanwhile Islamists roam the streets of Great Britain carrying signs with dire, violent threats to Europeans and others who "insult Islam." In this regard, after being cleared of "hate" or "racist" speech, this Christian blogger has now been issued an "official notice" that his life has been threatened, evidently by Islamists, whose own hate speech, including calls to violence and death threats, apparently is not at issue.
So, what is really going on here? Again, cui bono from hate crimes bills? And who suffers?
Hatred is engrained in "holy scriptures"
From these examples, it seems obvious that certain religious fanatics will gain the most from the hate crimes legislation in the West. "Minority" religionists will be protected, while those of a perceived majority will be prosecuted. No attention will be turned to the fact that religious scriptures themselves often constitute "hate speech" which has been used repeatedly to commit atrocities worldwide, including the murders of millions over the centuries.
.jpg)
In many places in the Bible, for instance, the Hebrew prophet Moses makes violent commentary that would be prosecutable today under hate speech legislation as found in Europe, Canada and elsewhere. This Mosaic hate speech led to the wanton massacre of the non-Israelite peoples of Canaan at the time. According to the Old Testament, only the Jewish tribal god Yahweh is divine, while everyone else's gods are "abominable" and "demonic." One biblical scripture that has been taken to heart by Jews, Christians and Muslims is the following from the book of Exodus (22:20):
Whoever sacrifices to any god, save to the LORD only, shall be utterly destroyed."
The "Lord" in this case, of course, is the biblical god, as interpreted through the eyes of Hebrew, Israelite and Jewish men.
A chronicle of atrocity and bloodshed—indeed, the word "kill" appears in over 300 biblical verses—much of the Old Testament constitutes one long hate speech designed to justify the slaughter of the native peoples of the Levant and the theft of their property, including their virgin girls, as at Numbers 31:17, concerning the Midianites:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Deuteronomy 32:9-43 is also full of calumny and vitriol against non-believers, as is Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
Hence, people who believe in other gods, as well as those who attempt to draw Jews away from Yahweh, should be destroyed and killed, according to this scripture.
Christianity, of course, has been used abundantly throughout the world to stir up hatred for native cultures and to destroy them through violence. One passage attributed to Jesus that has been employed pointedly over the centuries by Inquisitors and others appears at John 15:6:
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."
Jesus addresses the crowd at Luke 19
While telling a parable (Lk 19:27), Jesus makes it a point to end it by saying:
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me."
The only way we can interpret his intention in telling this parable and ending it thus would be that he was essentially speaking of himself—and this parable has been used over the centuries to justify violence against non-Christians.
According to the New Testament, Jesus also incited his followers to hate their parents, as at Luke 14:26:
If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
If he were in Canada or Europe today, would Jesus be arrested and charged with hate speech?
Islam is now catching up with its scriptures going global—such writings having been used countless times over the centuries to incite the commission of violence, such as Surah 9:111, which calls for the believers in the Abrahamic god to "kill and be killed" in his name. Koranic verses constantly remind believers in Islam that non-Muslims are inferior "infidels" with whom they should not associate, thus causing extreme enmity—and hatred—for non-Muslims. For example, at Surah 8:12-8:16, the Koran states:
.jpg)
Open Koran by el7bara
God revealed His will to the angels, saying 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!'
"That was because they defied God and His apostle. He that defies God and His apostle shall be sternly punished God. We said to them: 'Taste this. The scourge of the Fire awaits the unbelievers.'
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except for tactical reasons, or to join another band, he shall incur the wratch of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate."
There are many other scriptures in the Koran and additional Islamic texts that would constitute hate speech against non-believers.
Will the non-religious suffer most?
In many instances, it seems that hate crimes legislation represents an attempt to protect religion against criticism, no matter how violent and hateful the faith may be, while those who object to such calumny and associated atrocity are not protected.
Will the hate crimes legislation cover religious scriptures that incite people to commit violence against each other? Or is hate crimes legislation meant only to protect individuals of a certain ethnicity or religious leaning? Will it end up backfiring as it has in Canada and Europe, protecting individuals with the most insidious plots?
How do we "combat hate," which is claimed to be the real reason behind this legislation? The first step would be to get it out of texts billions of people consider to be "God's Word!" And if that step is impossible, because these texts are so filled with hatred, then we need to scrap them in favor of new ideologies that are not bigoted, biased, prejudiced and full of hate speech.
Sources & Further Reading
ADL Applauds Senate's Passage of Hate Crime Legislation
ADL: Hate Crimes Laws
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act
English Blogger Arrested for "Hate Speech"
The Koran with a Parallel Arabic Text
Previous Headlines
Science versus religion: The debate comes to the NIH
Beware of 'defamation of religion' censorship!
Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution
Jimmy Carter: 'Stop abusing women in the name of God'
Does the Old Testament foster corruption?
Hinduism on the rise in America
Madonna as Religious Guru?
Comments
The complete stiffling of the freedom of speech is underway.
The law should be written thusly: "Say whatever you want, but physically abuse or terrorize a minority group and you get prosecuted under harsh federal statutes."
to view a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 1500 pages long see
forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=59139
to view a partial list of FBI agents arrested for pedophilia see
dallasnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3574
Where have all the «beautiful people» gone ? Millions where promoting «Peace and Love». Where are they now ? Their absence leaves the door open for all this abuse by the administration.
Why no mention of the talmud in this diatribe of hate speech?
www.ety.com/HRP/racehate/talmud1.htm
Look at who pushed these laws worldwide then you will see real hate. Why no mention of the fact that this bill PROTECTS pedophiles? Anyone familiar with Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy's little slips in the past?
We have the government we deserve. One populated with deviants that con most with the pap most Americans lap up like a kitten with milk.
In Canada hate speech spews from government agents who organize and finance "Nazi" groups so the illusion of a threat from this quarter can be maintained. It's a complete fraud. Google "John Beatty+Ezra Levant" and "Grant Bristow" to follow up on limited aspects of the wretched tale. And police units have hate crimes units that play along with the provocateuring. (Apparently, not having any substance in their own character, they like the feeling of being 'insiders'.)
Very well written article. It vividly exposes the hatred behind the so called "hate crime" laws.
Anti-GENTILISM is the source of "antisemitism". HUMANITY did not invent "antisemitism" and then wait thousands of years for judaism to appear, just so everybody could "hate" it for absolutely no reason. Jacob invented judaism, Moses (another "gem" of humanity) codified anti-GENTILISM in his "torah". Then judaism practiced anti-GENTILISM, their hatred of ALL NON-jews, and the only SANE reaction of any NON-jew is self defense, which the "Tribe" calls antisemitism.
Judaism is neither a race or a religion, it is Xenophobic Tribalism.
XENOPHOBIC: n.
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.
TRIBALISM: n.
1. The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
2. A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
Hello,
I am a new examiner at Examiner.com. I'm the "Lansing Interfaith Examiner".
Would you be willing to subscribe to me and leave me comments? I have already subscribed to you and would love to reciprocate.
Also, do you have any advice for success with Examiner.com?
Thanks!
Kristen
I hate this charade of a law, and every son of a dog who wrote it, stands by it, or fails to disavow it.
I will learn to hate those protected by this so called law.
I will stand with a fist and a sword against any who would enforce this farce.
I HATE........(fill in the blank)
Stop pussyfooting around. Who benefits: Jews. While you whisper at home about their atrocities they are killing you.
God has dealt with mankind at different time in different ways in what theologians call dispensations of history. God has not evolved, only He Has devised a plan of history in which He will accomplished His purposes no matter who opposes Him. What you do not understand is that secular man is also following an eschaton -i.e. a glorious conclusion of history, this is what politicians refer to as "New World Order" - a one-world utopia where -notice- tolerance and love -not justice- will reign as the supreme virtue. Do you suppose they will have their perfect world without bloodshed? Do you suppose that the balancing of nature and Earth is going to be accomplished without bloodshed?
I don't know what law you're talking about? I didn't contribute to it, I didn't sign it, and it does NOT aplly to me!
Thus, I asm NOT adhering to such. I will NOT be quiet!
(in the 8th c. a popiola brought out a law, saying women and nuns are to be quiet in church. A nun wrote a composition on it, entitled, "Non Tacete!" ( I will NOT be quiet!)
People, read on lone " Extortion Practices of the Ruling Elite"
The Crimnal Law System is NOT broken, it was saet up deliberately that way & in Legalese to entrap us.
\
We are NOT the PERSONS (CAPITAL LETTERS) on our Birth Cewrtificates. Our ture human names are in small type letters.
Reference in all cases, "Bouvier's Law Dictionary"- on line.
Read also,on line, for your education:
"HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN"
Take notes on these.
Is this an attack against the hate crime bill (where are the love crimes?) or against christianity? The author should stick to one single topic and not use one subject to express her prejudice regarding another.
And I agree with the reader who points out that there is no mentioning of the Talmud. If you look who supports and promotes this bill, you'll realize that the pseudo "Jews" and Talmud are behind it. So that's the only reason it should be mentioned, but please refrain from veiled anti-religious outbursts!
The law in many areas is based upon false pretext. The so called 'hate laws' are but one more.
Any laws based upon 'false pretext' have been unenforceable since the time of the Romans.
The drug laws are one prime example; merely a bunch of scribbling by our criminal elite so that they can violate the mass of the ordinary population and exploit slave Labor in the prison camp system..
Our criminal elite can have their hired criminals in the legislature scribble as much as they want; it matters not; they are in their last days.
To the police and military, again I say, take no orders to commit crimes from the imbeciles. idiots and criminals in high places.
Their plots to exterminate us using nuclear weapons have been foiled, and they are out!
The only military preparations that need to be made is to prepare to take those who have assaulted us with nuclear weapons into protective custody.
HYPERBOLE was a teaching technique that Jesus often used. His words cannot always be taken literally, which unfortunately has happened. The SLAUGHTERING was also a predction of the killing of more than a millio rebelling Israelites to come in 70AD, by the Romans, 37 years after Jesus´death. It also refers to what is probably in store for us as they try to bring in the NEW WORLD ORDER, instead of accepting GOD´S KINGDOM.
HATE, as used in the Bible, often means loving a person or object less than another. Christians are supposed to love God and his Son more than they love their relatives.
LANGUAGE TRANSLATION FROM ONE TO ANOTHER brings inexactness. sometimes misunderstanding. Greek had no punctuation system, to clarify.
A very well written article - accurate on all counts.
The ADL was the original pusher of hate crime legislation - the ADL successfully pushed through these laws in European Union and Canada.
But, now there has a been a huge scramble to get other groups to achieve official PC victim status to get in on the power and patronage of Hate Crime/Diversity cult.
Homosexuals
Muslims (some who aren't real keen on gay rights)
Latinos (but probably not Republican voting Cubans)
numerous "philias" sexual perversions.
Various versions of "Black African Americans" who don't look very Black and who have never been poor.
This will include mixed race elites like Attorney General Eric Holder, Harvard spoiled brat professor Gates or the Obamanation himself.
Hate crime laws are cultural marxist power plays designed to corrupt the prosecution of violent crime in America.
www.bikers4freedom.com
In our age of political correctness, PC views will never be considered "hate speech" only unPC ones, yet again the principles of America's founding are being turned upside down.
Murdock’s intolerance for religion is unbounded. No matter what subject she writes about she seems to interject her emotions about groups of people who believe in things that she doesn’t.
According to her writings, religion ought to be abolished because certain scriptures are taken out of context. People take certain scriptures and say ‘look, this is full of hatred and intolerance, the beliefs of people who follow this is contradictory’. But what about some of the people who dedicate their lives to studying these scriptures? I can only speak from a Christian point of view, but the teachings from the very same scriptures are totally different from how opposers take them. It doesn’t matter what you think the meaning of the scriptures in the bible are, pastors and such do not teach from the bible from your perspective. They teach out of the bible guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, not all believe in the Holy Spirit, but you can just call it good conscience.
Faulting whole groups of people for what others, who claim to be the same, do is prejudice. Not that I feel Murdock has any qualms about being openly prejudice against groups of people, but I am a little shocked at the amount of people who seem to share her prejudice. If the logic used to justify this prejudice were to be applied to everybody, no religion, nationality, race or any other group could withstand it. Not even freethinkers.
In their former Soviet Union, someone managed to have laws passed making anti-Semitism punishable by death. Gee, look who behind the hate legislation right here in America
www.vdare.com/macdonald/090511_hate_crimes_prevention_bill.htm
Kason: "Murdock’s intolerance for religion is unbounded. No matter what subject she writes about she seems to interject her emotions about groups of people who believe in things that she doesn’t. According to her writings, religion ought to be abolished because certain scriptures are taken out of context."
That's absolute bullshite. Where does Acharya ever say that religion should be abolished? You don't know her work at all, so here you are telling lies. Achrya criticizes scriptures that make people act like dishonest idiots, and here you are proving her point.
Nice job.
Hate crime laws are always selectively enforced. The jews, who have already destroyed free speech for whites throughout Europe and Canada, are hellbent on doing the exact same thing in America. They are a communistic bunch of rats and every patriotic american must stand up against them.
Jason: "Faulting whole groups of people for what others, who claim to be the same, do is prejudice. Not that I feel Murdock has any qualms about being openly prejudice against groups of people, but I am a little shocked at the amount of people who seem to share her prejudice."
More absolute bullshite. Acharya doesn't fault "whole groups of people" - show me where she does that? Or are you just making up more crap so you can vilify HER? See, in order to defend an ideology, you make up lies and vilify an individual - that's exactly what Acharya criticizes.
And she never shows any prejudice against people - she criticizes a mindset. The very mindset you are revealing here.
Again, nice job.
It's payback tinme for centuries of hatred and oppression meted out by racist crackers. We guilted dumb Whitey into voting our man into office, who despises White people and is gonna make them pay. It's payback time honkeys, you're gonna get yours!
"How do we "combat hate," which is claimed to be the real reason behind this legislation? The first step would be to get it out of texts billions of people consider to be "God's Word!" And if that step is impossible, because these texts are so filled with hatred, then we need to scrap them in favor of new ideologies that are not bigoted, biased, prejudiced and full of hate speech."
Is she not saying that in order to combat hate we need to remove what she considers to be hate out of God's word? That would be the basis of Christianity, to remove parts of it or scrap it would be to create something else entirely. It would no longer be Christianity.
Perhaps I shouldn't have included all religions, but I stand firm in saying that she is for abolishing, at least, Christianity.
“No attention will be turned to the fact that religious scriptures themselves often constitute "hate speech" which has been used repeatedly to commit atrocities worldwide, including the murders of millions over the centuries.”
“Christianity, of course, has been used abundantly throughout the world to stir up hatred for native cultures and to destroy them through violence.”
She’s blaming the use Christianity for violence and hatred. That’s not the case. The misuse of Christianity is to blame. Any ideologies can be misused. She suggests that attention should be turned towards religious scriptures. Why? Because they have been used to commit atrocities worldwide. So because others have misused God’s word, we should use those examples to criticize what we follow today?
Her article: “Science versus religion: The debate comes to the NIH” is a fine example of her prejudice against Christians. She suggests that Dr. Collins’ faith is basis for scrutiny of his mindset. Not his actions, but his faith.
“The question facing us today is whether or not someone whose mind is uncompromisingly fixed upon the uncritical and unscientific belief that there is a giant man in the sky who took birth as his own son through the womb of a Jewish virgin can be relied upon for clear thinking when it comes to matters of national health. Since there have been many scientists in the past of one religious bent or another, yet the world goes on, the answer would appear to be "yes." However, much important data that could have changed the world for the better has been censored and suppressed based on religious fanaticism, so caution will always be warranted when someone of fervent faith is at the helm.”
I’m not familiar with her work; just with a few of her articles on this website. Based on those it seems plain to me that she is prejudice against, among other people of faith, Christians.
Jason keeps making inaccurate statements based on his own prejudices. Acharya's article on the NIH was reflecting other people's criticisms of Collins because he's a religious fanatic - quit playing dumb. She actually was very UNbiased against him and said he's a good choice. You just keep misrepresenting her so you can vilify her. Typical Christian bigotry.
Your quotes show nothing of the kind concerning any "abolition" of Christianity - you've been following other Xtian nutters who tell lies about her? Any SANE person would complain about the hate speech in the Bible and Christianity. Again, where does she say she's for abolishing religion?
Just stop telling lies and misrepresenting her. Again, you just prove her point.
“Qui bono”, is the key question. In having pushed successfully for passage of the Hate Bill, the ADL's objective was to override our constitutional free speech amendment to make anything that could be interpreted as anti semitic an actionable crime. In a very clever ploy they included sexual deviation into the mix so as to attract support for passage of the bill from every brand of sex deviant imaginable -- (of which there are a few in Congress). It worked.
But look for a supreme court challenge in the future as this new law is patently unconstitutional as well as against equal protection.
The Old Testament should probably be left in tact as a historical record to demonstrate the bloody foundations of an obsolete Judaism, (such as in Esther, Deuteronomy, parts of Isaiah. etc. -- See Martin Luther on Esther.)
In my view as a Christian, I want no part of a “JudaoChristian” tradition but take the New Testament plus the Nag Hamadi Gnostic texts including the Gospel of Thomas as
You quote Jesus: “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
My interpretation of this, as Thomas makes clear, is that Jesus was saying that these things are of the World and that one should rather be involved with the things of the Father (or spiritual matters), than the things of the world. But as He makes clear elsewhere, protect your fellow man (including your close ones) as you do the pupil of your own eye.
The USA already has a federal office dedicated to 'anti-Semtism' that has vague and wide ranging guidelines as to what is and is not PC.
If that Hate Crime Act becomes law, you can damn well bet it will be used to stifle ANY criticism or questions about Israel and its apartheid nation of hate.
And no questions will be allowed on the second greatest money-making racket of all times, the holocaust.
Even though the Israeli paper Haaretz published last Fall an article that stated that a little more than one million had died at Auschwitz and not the four million we've been brainwashed to believe, yet we still have that number SIX MILLION pummeled into our heads, 24/7.
From the Jewish con artists cleaning out Wall Street firms like Bernie Madoff, to the Jewish controlled Federal Reserve, to pistol packing Rabbis harvesting human organs from the unwilling and the unsuspecting, any questions into these rackets and cons will be declared VERBOTEN and anti-Semitic.
"See you in Gitm
If the ADL is for it, then I am against it. Jewish leftists have way, way, way too much power in the USA.
jews are G-Ds CHOSEN! None of you IDIOTS WILL CALL IN therightperspective DOT org radio show FRIDAY NIGNTS and DEBATE THE GREAT FRANK AND JOHN!
Wheeeeee!
Let's-go-get-them-Jews!
(idiots)
Something that possibly hasn't been considered with all this, is this; If people, anyone, has a valid issue with a person or people, that needs to be heard and replied to - then for that to not only be ignored and squashed, but be considered a 'crime' punishable by 'law' - the 'normal' avenue of DIALOGUE having been terminated, will eventually result in that concern/issue being acted on/dealt with from an even lesser accepted way of expression...that of total revenge. For two reasons. Firstly, for being considered less than worthy of being heard. Secondly, for the gross inconvenience and embarrassment of being 'handled' by 'The Law'. Some people get very cheesed off at alot less than what this is all pointing toward...
Perhaps being 'heard and honoured' is what WE ALL ARE ENTITLED TO - BLACK WHITE GREEN RED OR BLUE.
The beauty of a rainbow is made obvious by ALL THE COLOURS...
Then again...perhaps that's the ultimate intent?
What do they call it?
Ahh!
Divide and Conquer...pure genius!!!
NOT
Can we no longer say that Palestinians are the descendants of the early Hebrews - and hence are Semitic, but who converted to Islam in the 7th Century with its advent ?
Can we no longer say that the Israelis are overwhelmingly not Semitic, but Khazarian in origin; Khazaria of the 8th Century being between the Black and Caspian Seas ?
Would it be `hate speech` to call Jews, Israelis and Zionists LIARS for misrepresenting who they really are ?
“Achrya criticizes scriptures that make people act like dishonest idiots, and here you are proving her point.”
Baloney,
Two things. First, you're being presumptuous when you say that my opinions of Murdock’s articles are a result of scriptures that make people act like dishonest idiots. Secondly, If her point is to criticize scriptures that make people act like dishonest idiots, how can one person prove her point? I can speak only for myself, no one else.
“See, in order to defend an ideology, you make up lies and vilify an individual - that's exactly what Acharya criticizes.”
Again, you’re assuming I was defending an ideology. I was not. I was simply pointing out what I saw as prejudice.
“Jason keeps making inaccurate statements based on his own prejudices.”
What exactly am I showing prejudice against? I showed exact quotes from Murdock and offered my opinions on them. Like them or not, they certainly were not based on any kind of prejudice.
“You just keep misrepresenting her so you can vilify her. Typical Christian bigotry.”
Typical Christian bigotry? Is it not prejudice to say that? If you don’t like what I say then judge me as an individual. Why do you have to attribute what I say to my faith?
“Again, where does she say she's for abolishing religion?”
Okay, I was too general, but here is another example of her stating the “need” to rewrite or scrap the bible. Since Judaism and Christianity are based on God’s word, to rewrite or scrap the bible would be to abolish both.
Murdock’s concluding paragraph from “Does the Old Testament foster corruption?”
“Instead of conditioning children with anachronistic, ethnocentric and prejudicial "scriptures" from ancient times, let us portray and recreate humanity in a more evolved manner. The solution is not to pit culture against culture, with shrill cries using "hate speech," but to provide less hate speech in the first place in our "holy texts," which need either to be rewritten or to be scrapped entirely in favor of more enlightened creations.”
"If we beat each other up, more predators will come", said the little fish to the other little fish in the ocean. Hate crime LAWS are against everyone!
Jason, I agree with Baloney. You (Jason) said:
"I’m not familiar with her work..."
Proving Baloney's point - you know nothing about her yet you're quick to judge her personally and launch insults and smears. You take a persecuted xian stance that smells to high heaven and is as transparent as glass. The more you try to deny your own biases the deeper you put your foot in it. Jason, you're clearly trying to frame this article (& her others) from a discussion about religious ideologies into a one about individuals within the religion itself - because that's a more convenient position for you to try to point fingers claiming she's anti this or that when it's not true. It's very dishonest but just the usual tactic of Christians attempting to demonize all those who don't blindly accept Christianity on faith.
"you know nothing about her yet you're quick to judge her personally and launch insults and smears."
Incorrect. Like I said before, I was merely offering my opinions on her articles that I read on this website, based on the content she put into them. I observe the obvious prejudice contained within her writings. To judge her personally and then launch insults and smears based on that would have been to include observations based on things not contained in her writings that I read. I did not do that, instead I derived my opinions based on what I read from her.
“ Jason, you're clearly trying to frame this article (& her others) from a discussion about religious ideologies into a one about individuals within the religion itself”
What are the purpose of these religious ideologies? Who uses them? The individuals within the religion itself. She suggests that these ideologies be changed to better society. Who would that affect? Certainly the individuals within the religion itself. The two can’t very well be separated.
“It's very dishonest but just the usual tactic of Christians attempting to demonize all those who don't blindly accept Christianity on faith.”
You begin with saying “you're quick to judge her personally”, yet conclude with this statement? You think I’m using a usual tactic of Christians to demonize all those who don't blindly accept Christianity on faith? That’s very presumptuous. If you feel I’m too quick to judge, you should have no problem with it since you’re judging me with no merit.
The ancient nation of Israel and its Temple, cease to exist in 70 CE when Roman General Titus and its legion level the city. Jesus foretold its destruction (Matthew 23:37,38) Why? because they abandoned the true worship of their God Yahweh and his commandments by following the nations around them their disgusting practices of sacrificing their own sons and daughters in the fire to their god molech (2Kings 23:10)something detestable to the creator of heaven and earth,We read that God values obedience higher than sacrifice (1Sam 15:22)Child sacrifice was a normal part of life for the Canaanites,Amorites and the Sodomites. Can we regard our own civilisation as anything other than pagan? If the definition of a pagan culture is one in which one or more aspects of God's creation are worshiped instead of the creator (Rom 1:25) then we qualify, on the grounds that we have elevated man himself - either as an autonomous individual or as 'society' - to be his own god.human life is cheap an
So what's the problem? If you kill a jew or a queer, just say you wanted his wallet?
"Hate crime, what hate crime? Ya gotta believe me officer, I love everybody and I got no problem with a person's sexual "orientation", I just needed a little cash, that's why I offed the sucka....
Officer: "That's all right, son. I can see you're not a "homophobe." Calm down and we'll let you speak to a lawyer."
This article is such garbage. It is a complete diversion of the perps who are behind it and who it will defend. In short it is obviously for the 'chosen ones' and only a moron would write otherwise. Nice try, ROFLMAO!
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!