29 May 13
Originally posted by Great King RatThen if we should be so ambivalent, abstract and considered in terms of the abolishment methodology when we are considering Christianity, then why jump down the throats of people who casually suggest abolishing Islam?
Just because "no one seemed to need it" doesn't mean you should be the same. You're allowed to be better than that.
Let me rephrase:
How did you think the people who called for the abolishment of Christianity meant it (assuming for a moment you remembered it correctly)? Did they imply forbidding it or was it something else like "ooh, I hope Christianity disappears one day"?
Surely the same considered approach you are taking now (before presumably making your decision on Christianity, because you aren't going to hem and haw are you...?) could have been taken when addressing these posters.
29 May 13
Originally posted by divegeesterThis is why I raised the point about what abolish means. There's a world of difference between being happy about Christianity not existing anymore and wanting to - for instance - forbid it. Do you agree that there's a big difference there?
It will be very pleasing to hear that none of the atheists or other Christian detractors would want it abolished. Especially sonhouse and joe who are the 2 posters I particularly think I remember saying they would be happy if Christianity didn't exist anymore.
Would you mind answering the question in my previous post?
29 May 13
Originally posted by divegeesterDid they only say abolish or were they more specific as to how that should be accomplished?
Then if we should be so ambivalent, abstract and considered in terms of the abolishment methodology when we are considering Christianity, then why jump down the throats of people who casually suggest abolishing Islam?
Surely the same considered approach you are taking now (before presumably making your decision on Christianity, because you aren't going to hem and haw are you...?) could have been taken when addressing these posters.
29 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterI already answered your OP on the previous page, but you only responded to the part where I spoke about the definition thingy. By the way, my response would be identical if you were talking about Islam, Judaism or religion on general.
(before presumably making your decision on Christianity, because you aren't going to hem and haw are you...?)
Oh, and I'm an atheist, in case you're wondering.
29 May 13
Originally posted by divegeesterno
In the wake of the recent "Abolish Islam" debacle, I made a comment in another thread that posters in this forum had a one time or another either called for or approved of the removal of Christianity from the world. Proper Knob has challenged me on it and to be fair I could be mistaken, so I'm inviting those of an opinion to comment:
[b]In a situation ...[text shortened]... nity either stays or it goes on it's own merits and this is a one time offer. Your call...
29 May 13
Originally posted by Great King RatNo specifics, neither from those I (think) remember saying Christianity should be abolished nor from the much more sensitised abolition of Islam party. Which is part of my point.
Did they only say abolish or were they more specific as to how that should be accomplished?
29 May 13
Originally posted by Great King RatThis is not about genocide in any way.
Well, if "they" simply said abolish I see no problem with it (do you?). I distinctly remember a threadtitle that said "Death to all muslims" though which is quite different from saying "I'd like Islam to disappear". Has there ever been a threat that said "Death to all Christians?"
This is about the freedom to call for the abolition of a religion. Any religion, without being observed as a bigot, racist or extremist.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 May 13
Originally posted by divegeesterWhen what a person wants to abolish is a belief system that is worth dying for to preserve, of course those people will view the intent as genocidal. And the activities that would be required to abolish such a belief system would be the activities objective historians see as genocide.
This is not about genocide in any way.
This is about the freedom to call for the abolition of a religion. Any religion, without being observed as a bigot, racist or extremist.
Of course, wanting to do something, and saying it should be done, are not themselves genocide.
IMO.
29 May 13
Originally posted by JS357Just because they may think it's worth dying for doesn't mean they can force a life-or-death situation. For example, the abolishers may content themselves with jailing the most troublesome members of the target religion.
When what a person wants to abolish is a belief system that is worth dying for to preserve, of course those people will view the intent as genocidal. And the activities that would be required to abolish such a belief system would be the activities objective historians see as genocide.
Of course, wanting to do something, and saying it should be done, are not themselves genocide.
IMO.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 May 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis is true. It depends on the degree of fervor of the two sides.
Just because they may think it's worth dying for doesn't mean they can force a life-or-death situation. For example, the abolishers may content themselves with jailing the most troublesome members of the target religion.
30 May 13
Originally posted by divegeester
This is not about genocide in any way.
This is about the freedom to call for the abolition of a religion. Any religion, without being observed as a bigot, racist or extremist.
This is about the freedom to call for the abolition of a religion. Any religion, without being observed as a bigot, racist or extremist.
The question of whether or not one is bigoted/racist/extremist in his call for something cannot be divorced from the question of what he means or intends by that call. This is a basic point, related to the idea that one cannot divorce judgment of the moral worth of some action from consideration of the intentions/motivations involved. If I stick my middle finger up to you, am I thereby doing something blameworthy? Well, that depends: maybe I intend to tell you to go F yourself; on the other hand, maybe my middle finger is injured and I intend to bring it to your attention, thinking for some reason you can help me.
Looking back through the posting history, I know why you are playing so dumb on this point. If you want to understand why the recent call for wiping out Islam garnered so much resistance, then (going back to King Rat's points), you should look to the underlying intent and what was made manifest to the forum regarding the underlying intent. The same forum member was explicitly making egregious fallacies of composition/generalization where one infers the whole of Islam is bad from localized instances of bad parts within Islam; and this member was starting thread(s) calling for the death of all Muslims. Is it really such a mystery, then, why there was backlash without the need to take the time to explicitly ask him what he meant by wiping out Islam? Do you really think the forum response would have been substantially differerent if the call to abolition were in reference to Christianity instead of Islam? Can you specifically point to an instance in which such blameworthy intentions on the same scale were made against Christianity and Christians and yet the forum remained silent on the matter? I am not aware of any off the top of my head.
Anyway, one has the "freedom" to call for the abolition of a religion, any religion. But whether or not he is thereby and to that extent bigoted/racist/extremist depends on the specifics of what he means/intends by that call. This is more or less what Rat has been pointing out.
For what it's worth, my answer to your hypothetical, presented just as it is in the OP, would be "No."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 May 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloI believe we can assume there are equally fervent wishers for the extermination of Christianity, as there are for the extermination of Islam. Who disagrees?This is about the freedom to call for the abolition of a religion. Any religion, without being observed as a bigot, racist or extremist.
The question of whether or not one is bigoted/racist/extremist in his call for something cannot be divorced from the question of what he means or intends by that call. This is a basic point, related to ...[text shortened]... s worth, my answer to your hypothetical, presented just as it is in the OP, would be "No."
30 May 13
Originally posted by divegeesterWhat is it about? You seem remarkably reluctant to explain what you do mean by 'abolish'. When you 'call for the abolition of a religion', what exactly do you want to be done? What would it take to stop you from being a Christian? A declaration that Christianity is abolished? Mild persuasion? Torture? Death?
This is not about genocide in any way.
This is about the freedom to call for the abolition of a religion. Any religion, without being observed as a bigot, racist or extremist.
I think that anyone calling for the abolition of a religion, is either remarkably ignorant, or knows that something equivalent to genocide would be required to carry it out. Such a person does fit the descriptions: bigot, racist and extremist.