Germany Is A Christian Nation

[lxskllr]

So wait which one is artwork and which one is avocation, Music or Films? You gave different answers for each. I mean regardless of the form of government I am hoping your internal dialog has some consistency.

Ken

You misread. Film and music are obviously art. Religion is avocation through institution. Furthermore, they get their uneducated minions to do their bidding through "supernatural extortion", where they'll be rewarded, or persecuted through their actions.

So are you saying that the preacher or imam or what have you of a religious order, even if it is enormous, they have control over every single person in that order and what they do? Am I understanding that logic path right. So if someone who watched a television preacher commited a sex act that television preacher should be put on the sex offender list. I mean he influenced this person of course because he told them that Jesus said to love the little children, right?

Hyperbole I know but I am trying to use it as a device to a point. The point being how can any single person be responsible for all the corrupted ways any random sicko can reinterpret and misinterpret their words?

Ken

There's no room for interpretation when the individual's actions have been praised by their leader, as in the case of the Fort Hood shooter.

[Roo]

In our Christian nation, the USA, speaking for myself, we have religious freedoms, even moreso than the EU, which actually bans certain religions, of course they won't ban the one they should, but it's to their own peril. Back to the OP, I think this is the crazy issue here, and elsewhere, in that it's like there are government protected and supported foreign invaders in one's land, and you are legally forced to stand down and accept it, at your own nations decline and demise. A government that does this, is the enemy of it's own people.

I think you fail to understand the word "tolerance". Tolerance does not mean you have to agree with it, or accept it. It means you tolerate it. I mean, while I do have critical views of Islam, which I believe are substantiated, I tolerate it's existence, and would not personally inhibit people to practice it. I would approve of Muslims being given freedom to choose their path as a personal faith, and to leave it if desired. Which is usually not the case. But while I disagree with Islam, I tolerate it's existence. I think we all do, we have to.

First quote: Advocate banning Islam in the EU

Second quote: Do not advocate banning Islam in the US.

Why the discrepancy Tom?

[devilock76]

You misread. Film and music are obviously art. Religion is avocation through institution. Furthermore, they get their uneducated minions to do their bidding through "supernatural extortion", where they'll be rewarded, or persecuted through their actions.



There's no room for interpretation when the individual's actions have been praised by their leader, as in the case of the Fort Hood shooter.

OK but you said the musician was responsible in one case and the film personnel not in the same case. I am trying to sort out the divide there. Look back at your own responses.

Ken

[devilock76]

Quote Originally Posted by devilock76 View Post
So in your opinion, if a musician sings about something, and people do it then the musician is to blame?

Ken

Yes, because they've gone beyond entertainment, and started evangelizing. I'd be interested in hearing of the musician that's spawned car bombers.

To refresh, you then later differentiated film and of course the Judas Priest Suicide trial, but I am curious how this "something" was so different.

Ken

[lxskllr]

OK but you said the musician was responsible in one case and the film personnel not in the same case. I am trying to sort out the divide there. Look back at your own responses.

Ken

I said that with the caveat that they weren't evangelizing. If a musician sings prayer chants that advocate violence, it really isn't entertainment anymore, now is it? He isn't even a musician at this point, he's a preacher, and will be dealt with accordingly.

[lxskllr]

Dude, this is seriously getting tedious. You're being an ass for the sake of being an ass. I've been absolutely clear in everything I've said, but your trying to work some 3rd rate Perry Mason routine on me. You really don't want to know what I'd do with the lawyers in my kingdom ;^)

[devilock76]

I said that with the caveat that they weren't evangelizing. If a musician sings prayer chants that advocate violence, it really isn't entertainment anymore, now is it? He isn't even a musician at this point, he's a preacher, and will be dealt with accordingly.

Sorry where is that line, most art is meant to convey a message. Maybe we should have tried Jimi Hendrix for anyone who may have been abused or murdered after their attacker heard the song Hey Joe.

Ken

[tom502]

I have a soft spot for Scientology, because I was into it years ago, and it really opened my mind to the basics of Eastern philosophy. Is the current Church corrupt? Yes, I believe so. Even the teachings and books have been altered since L Ron died. But when a group of lawyers coup'd the Church after Hubbard died, many people left it, and the Freezone came about, that seeks to practice it as it was originally. If you wanna read the beef on the current church, just read the Freezone material. Capt Bill Richardson(maybe Robertson), was the number 2 man while Hubbard was alive, but once he died, Miscavage and his gang took over, and kicked him out. While many harp of Hubbard for being a sci-fi author, collectively most of his books were not sci-fi. He wrote adventures, westerns, mystery stories. He was a pulp fiction writer in the 30's and 40's. Scientology is a gradient system, like steps of higher initiation in a Lodge type format. It's different than a simple believe or burn faith based philosophy. Along with reincarnation, and man as an immortal soul, the core practice is releasing subconscious memories of traumatic events, which affect how one thinks and acts. It gets a lot of bad rap, I believe due to the abusive ways of the corrupted leadership, but at it's core, I think Hubbard was more right than not.

[devilock76]

Dude, this is seriously getting tedious. You're being an ass for the sake of being an ass. I've been absolutely clear in everything I've said, but your trying to work some 3rd rate Perry Mason routine on me. You really don't want to know what I'd do with the lawyers in my kingdom ;^)

No I am just trying to clarify what the hell you are saying is the line here. I mean I understand we are dealing with your fictitious kingdom but I am trying to find a logic pattern here. Hey look you created the hyperbole situation, not me.

Ken

[lxskllr]

Sorry where is that line, most art is meant to convey a message. Maybe we should have tried Jimi Hendrix for anyone who may have been abused or murdered after their attacker heard the song Hey Joe.

Ken

...

I'm VERY familiar with Hendrix. Would you care to point out the line that states one will get rewarded for killing anyone, or where that course of action is advocated regardless of reward.

[devilock76]

...

I'm VERY familiar with Hendrix. Would you care to point out the line that states one will get rewarded for killing anyone, or where that course of action is advocated regardless of reward.

As soon as you clarify the original yes they are guilty of someone does something. I never said it had to preach anything. People have been doing messed up things in the name of religion with no one you can point to as the person who told it to them yet you can blame their whole religious order. Remember your words were if someone from a certain mosque or church does something then that whole order is done, there was no stipulation about the person being told to do something directly.

If I say "God will grant glory to those who defend his kingdom and his name." what do I mean. Do I mean kill anyone wearing sari, or am I saying kill any one reading Nietzsche, or am I saying stand up for your beliefs, or am I saying don't blaspheme. Religion has lots of rhetoric, they all do, how can you tie that rhetoric or more specifically someone who recites the cannon of it to the maniacal works of the insane?

Ken

[Roo]

Good grief you two! Can we go back to talking about something real? Heaven forbid I resume actually working for my paycheck...

[lxskllr]

As soon as you clarify the original yes they are guilty of someone does something. I never said it had to preach anything. People have been doing messed up things in the name of religion with no one you can point to as the person who told it to them yet you can blame their whole religious order. Remember your words were if someone from a certain mosque or church does something then that whole order is done, there was no stipulation about the person being told to do something directly.

If I say "God will grant glory to those who defend his kingdom and his name." what do I mean. Do I mean kill anyone wearing sari, or am I saying kill any one reading Nietzsche, or am I saying stand up for your beliefs, or am I saying don't blapheme. Religion has lots of rhetoric, they all do, how can you tie that rhetoric or more specifically someone who recites the cannon of it to the maniacal works of the insane?

Ken

Seriously?! First off, you've put words in my mouth. You find the exact place I said I would remove a whole order. No paraphrasing, no manual quote. Copy/paste using your mouse, and show it to me. There's Muslim temples that SPECIFICALLY advocate violence, and praise acts of such. There is no room for interpretation, and honestly I don't care. The responsibility for their members is on them. If violence comes from a religion known for violence, I don't care if it was a one off event. THEY will pay the penalty. If they don't like it, they're free to leave. My borders will be very open in one direction.

[devilock76]

If I were running the show, I'd take a hardline stance against extremists. They could keep their burkhas, or whatever else they want, but any violence would be dealt with at the source. A car bomber came from a particular mosque? guess what, you just lost your mosque. It would be razed within a month. That might inspire them to keep a closer eye on their people. If that didn't work, I'd just expel them, but then any country I was running wouldn't be a democracy :^D

Simple enough, obviously I inserted the bold tags to emphasize exactly what I am referencing.

Ok you said mosque in specific not an order, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt of it not being just anti muslim like your example, by saying order, as I don't feel that was really your point.

Ken

[devilock76]

Seriously?! First off, you've put words in my mouth. You find the exact place I said I would remove a whole order. No paraphrasing, no manual quote. Copy/paste using your mouse, and show it to me. There's Muslim temples that SPECIFICALLY advocate violence, and praise acts of such. There is no room for interpretation, and honestly I don't care. The responsibility for their members is on them. If violence comes from a religion known for violence, I don't care if it was a one off event. THEY will pay the penalty. If they don't like it, they're free to leave. My borders will be very open in one direction.

And incidentally you have added the praising and advocating violent acts later. Your original quote as I showed said if a car bomber came from a mosque that mosque was done would be raised. In your words it was not made clear that anyone in that mosque even supported that action.

Ken