I got a heaping helping of "Christian Love" on Sat

[RebelSnake]

Quote: Christians don't put fish symbols on there car to inflame atheists, deists, or agnostics.

You're the one that implied atheists have evolve fish stickers out of hate, not me.

[Sanjuro]

Actually BHL there are 2 things about this I have omitted out of respect. Because I though it too inflammatory to post publicly. So please, stop trying to be the victim when it was my car they screwed with in the first place. Take the high road, mate. Just this once.

[Sanjuro]

And Matt, believe me, none of those things apply.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I'm still amazed that anyone could associate displaying a Darwin fish with a hate crime and defend vandalism. It's so bizarre I still can't really believe that BHL is serious.

Well, BHL didn't defend the attack on Sanjuro's car -- all he did was say that he can see why someone might do it. I go through that exercise every time I see some wacko "go postal" at the place where he works. Doesn't mean I agree or condone such crimes ... but I can understand how a person could get to a point where he'd do it.

[Sanjuro]

If I put an anti-gay sticker on my auto would I be wise to park it in San Francisco? Would it be wise for me to place a blackface sticker on my car and drive through harlem? Would I be wise to put a "I hate cops" bumper sticker on my car and drive down the highway?

San Francisco..hell, if you park it in greensboro it might be a problem from what I can tell.

Seriously though, there is a major differance here with that analogy. From what I can tell being gay is no more a choice than being black, white, or hetroexual. Not liking a group that a person associates with or that person's choice to associate with them is much more acceptable. If you grew up in India, you most likely would be Hindu or Buddhist, so I certainly consider being a christian closer to a choice regardless of environment...If one is being a close minded christian, that is certainly a choice. This reminds me, years ago I used to drive around with a sticker that said "racists eat poo".

[A Person]

I'm still amazed that the Evolve Fish invokes such anger. "Beyond Offensive", "inflammatory", "hate". I know many Christians who display an Evolve Fish to identify themselves as Christians who believe in evolution. They too are amazed at the bigotry of those that view science as an attack on Jesus.

If they didn't want to offend other people they would have used a symbol that is distinctly different from the symbol that Christians commonly used.

Some people are all too easily 'offended' by other people's views. It isn't just the fish, the Flying Spaghetti Monster emblem is subject to the same attacks. I'm sure that a sticker that said "Americans for Evolution Education" would be seen as provocative by some.

I also wonder what BHL's reaction would be if his Jesus Fish were scraped off his car. Would it be "Well you have to understand that this symbol is provocative to worshippers of the Mother Goddess" or rather "Persecution! Oppression! Everyone hates us poor Christians! The Anti-Christ is among us!"

[A Person]

legion of evolution hating greensborian's to prove that christianity is the loving, kinder faith

My disagreement with this statement is with 'legion' and their motive. Legion implies a large number of people were involved, and (although I realize you were being sarcastic) their motive was likely that of other vandals and the Evolve Fish gave them an identifiable 'enemy' so they felt justified in the attack.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the vandalism was not religiously based. Evolve Fish and FSM emblems are frequently targets - often accompanied by some strange slogans scratched or painted.

[A Person]

You did just fine Liv. The only change I would make would be "evolution, atheist hating christians". Call it like it is.

It's wrong to assume that someone with an Evolve Fish is an atheist. I do know some Christians (teachers) who sport them on their cars to demonstrate their belief in evolution and to show support for science education. But they also show other Christian stickers.

[Questioner]

Let me make something perfectly clear. What somebody did to your car was completly uncalled for and completely un-Christian like.

It is wonderful to see you condemn that criminal vandalism. I have seen a LOT of offensive Christian bumper stickers (and even signs) on cars, but while I hear of aethist and non-christian bumper stickers getting cars vandalized (or their drivers getting seriously violated by the police), I have never yet heard of anybody vandalizing a car with an offensive Christian bumper sticker.

As you seem so well aware, that kind of behavior just drives more people away from Christianity. The victim develops a deeper hatred toward Christians, and would never become one him/herself. Who would want to join a group perceived as being a bunch of vicious hooligans?

So it is good to see you openly condemn such behavior. But realize that no matter how offensive his evolution fish was to those with an opposing opinion, the fact that some Christians decide to take offense is no excuse for such intolerance. If a Christian can put an anti-evolution bumper sticker on his car, why cannot Sanjuro put a pro evolution sticker on his car? Anti-evolution/pro-creationism stickers are offensive to us who believe in evolution--and especially to those of us who believe that church and state must be kept strictly apart.

Bottom line, I would ask that you strengthen your condemnation with words that express Sanjuro's right to put any political positions he wants on his car, just as you expect Christians' cars to be left alone when they put their political positions on.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

As you seem so well aware, that kind of behavior just drives more people away from Christianity. The victim develops a deeper hatred toward Christians..

Just for the record, and speaking only personally, I would say that no vandalism by a nut would ever lead me to hate the group that nut belongs to... unless perhaps I have some reason to believe that his group approves of the nut's actions.

...Anti-evolution/pro-creationism stickers are offensive to us who believe in evolution--and especially to those of us who believe that church and state must be kept strictly apart.

For my own part, it never occurred to me to feel "offended" by such things as "anti-evolution" stickers. I see a sticker that says "God said it, BANG it happened -- there's you Big Bang" and I just figure that there's ignorance at work and pity such a person and any children they might have.

No, in this realm, the only time I get offended is when religious nuts try to impose their beliefs on the public school curriculum, or on presentations made by the federal park service or at publicly-funded museums. That's when they cross the line and start messing with church/state separation, and that's when I get "offended."

Some idiot wants to build a museum of creationism with his own money, that's cool. I'll laugh and get on with life. He wants to pressure the Federal government to stop telling people the latest information gleaned by scientists studying the Grand Canyon, and yeah... I'm going to be offended.

[Questioner]

Just for the record, and speaking only personally, I would say that no vandalism by a nut would ever lead me to hate the group that nut belongs to... unless perhaps I have some reason to believe that his group approves of the nut's actions.

Nor would a single act of vandalism lead me to any opinion one way or the other of the group to which the vandal belongs. But when members of a group commit repeated acts of vandalism, such that MY freedom to put any bumper sticker on my car that I wish is endangered due to fear that my car will be vandalized, then I begin to view that group as an enemy, and a direct danger to me and my property.

...Anti-evolution/pro-creationism stickers are offensive to us who believe in evolution--and especially to those of us who believe that church and state must be kept strictly apart.

If those creationists weren't trying to force their anti-scientific beliefs on my children by trying to force our public schools to ban the teaching of evolution, I wouldn't be so offended. And even more pertinent, they can be quite confident their cars won't be vandalized. Because those of us who rely on science, negotiation and tolerance just don't vandalize property or attack the persons of those who don't agree with us. But it is those religious fundamentalists who put us and our property at risk if we try to express our beliefs publically. I find that extremely offensive, and every time I see one of their stickers, I'm offended because I don't have equal freedom to express my views publically (since I can't afford car repairs).

During the last election, several of my neighbors had Bush/Cheney signs on their lawns. When I wanted to put a Kerry/Edwards sign on our lawn, my husband was very opposed because of the danger of religious fundamentalists vandalizing our home. And he is an even more liberal Democrat than am I.

We have to ask ourselves, what kind of people are these ultra right wing religious bigots who think they have a right to express their religious and political opinions, but those of us who disagree with them have no such right,? When like the Nazi Brown Shirts, they feel perfectly justified in tearing down our signs and vandalizing our homes and cars if we try to exercise OUR freedom of expression?

[Sanjuro]

I just wanted to take a minute to thank everyone for the concern. Your PMs and posts of support are appreciated.

[Questioner]

Eli Wiesel Attacked!

Yet another example of the kind of evil and violence promoted by those who think their views are right and everybody else is wrong--and that people don't have a right to "be wrong".

Until people who happen to be christians, but are also good, honorable, non-violent people, start loudly demanding that their fundamentalist and evalgelical brethern respect others with different views, I think hatred of Christians will grow.

Good christians must insist that everybody has the right to have their voice heard; and until those kinds of christians stand up and denounce those in their midst who would committ crimes against people with different views, then their religion is going to be attacked more and more as an evil religion. And it is going to become a more frequent thing that violent christians are compared to violent muslims because their behavior is identical

[BecauseHeLives]

Good christians must insist that everybody has the right to have their voice heard; and until those kinds of christians stand up and denounce those in their midst who would committ crimes against people with different views, then their religion is going to be attacked more and more as an evil religion.

It seems to me that many good Christians were put to death in Germany during WW2 because their Christian doctrine didn't agree with Nazi doctrine. I recall the catholic church sitting idle during this.

And it is going to become a more frequent thing that violent christians are compared to violent muslims because their behavior is identical

You can compromise Christianity to agree with the world or you can choose to follow the Word of God which in most instances goes against fleshly wisdom. A Christian is not a phsically violent person but a Christian should be violent pretective of the Word of God. God does not change and neither should you.

[A Person]

A Christian is not a phsically violent person but a Christian should be violent pretective of the Word of God.

And Islam is a religion of Peace but true Muslims must defend the Q'ran with violence if neccessary. Sounds familiar?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Until people who happen to be christians, but are also good, honorable, non-violent people, start loudly demanding that their fundamentalist and evalgelical brethern respect others with different views, I think hatred of Christians will grow.

I don't expect you to be your brother's keeper. On the other hand, it's expressions of this sort of sentiment that makes me feel better about the Christian community. It's one thing to think that not all Christians are nuts that are liable to become violent at the drop of a hat... it's quite another thing to see the concrete truth of that belief.

[Questioner]

It seems to me that many good Christians were put to death in Germany during WW2 because their Christian doctrine didn't agree with Nazi doctrine. I recall the catholic church sitting idle during this....

And I recall the entire Holocause being based on one particular book of Martin Luther (the founder of your religion). That book is entitled, "The Jews and Their Lies." And of course, the protestants did a bit more than sit idle during that time, they actively helped ship the Jews to Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, Buchenwald.....

A Christian is not a phsically violent person but a Christian should be violent pretective of the Word of God.

Oh, my God! Are you now advocating violence against anybody who doesn't agree with your wierd version of the "Word of God"???????

[BecauseHeLives]

Oh, my God! Are you now advocating violence against anybody who doesn't agree with your wierd version of the "Word of God"???????

Not at all. I think you know what I meant but I'll explain it to you anyways.

I don't advocate violence at all when it comes to somebody that doesn't agree with you. I do however advocate that a person should be "violently", or could be said as "aggresively", protective of the Word of God. you should not waver on God's Word or try to bend it so you won't offend others. Did you pick up the phone yet?

[A Person]

BHL: I know you hate to define your words, but you're going to have to explain what you mean by 'violently' and 'aggressivly' when you don't advocate 'violence'

If you don't mean 'violence' as in rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment how do you mean it?

[Questioner]

I think you know what I meant but I'll explain it to you anyways.

I don't advocate violence at all when it comes to somebody that doesn't agree with you. I do however advocate that a person should be "violently", or could be said as "aggresively", protective of the Word of God. you should not waver on God's Word or try to bend it so you won't offend others. Did you pick up the phone yet?

No. I still don't know what you meant. Your words lead me to believe that you meant it is OK to harm or kill other people (like me) who disagree publically with your beliefs. And obviously, SouthernFriedInfidel is unclear about what you mean too. So I'm not the only one who thought you were saying violence against others who disagree with you is OK.

Do you see how easy it is for people to express themselves in a way that people think they said something they never meant to say? Like the priest in the Phillippines who may have said something about praying to the Pope? But from a short news article, you had no opportunity to question that priest to see if he was quoted correctly, or if he indeed meant to tell the people to "pray to the pope". Which I'm sure he would deny were he given the chance to correct or clarify his statement.

And further, I haven't got a clue as to what your question about picking up a phone means.