Log in

View Full Version : Let's Stop Stereotyping Religious People



Capitalist Lawyer
12th December 2006, 01:29
Let's Stop Stereotyping Evangelicals

By Joseph Loconte and Michael Cromartie
Wednesday, November 8, 2006; A27

It was in 1976 -- the "year of the evangelical," according to Newsweek -- that conservative Christians burst upon the political landscape. Critics have been warning about the theocratic takeover of America ever since. Thus the plaintive cry of a Cabinet member in the Carter administration: "I am beginning to fear that we could have an Ayatollah Khomeini in this country, but that he will not have a beard . . . he will have a television program."

This election season produced similar lamentations -- Howard Dean's warning about Christian "extremism," Kevin Phillips's catalogue of fears in "American Theocracy" and brooding documentaries such as "Jesus Camp," to name a few. This theme is a gross caricature of the 100 million or more people who could be called evangelicals. But the real problem is that it denies the profoundly democratic ideals of Protestant Christianity, while ignoring evangelicalism's deepening social conscience.

Evangelicals led the grass-roots campaigns for religious liberty, the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. Even the Moral Majority in its most belligerent form amounted to nothing more terrifying than churchgoers flocking peacefully to the polls on Election Day. The only people who want a biblical theocracy in America are completely outside the evangelical mainstream, their influence negligible.

So as Jerry Falwell and other ministers were jumping into politics, leaders such as Charles Colson -- former Nixon aide turned born-again Christian -- were charting another path. In 1976 Colson launched Prison Fellowship, a ministry to inmates, to address the soaring crime problem. Today it ranks as the largest prison ministry in the world, active in most U.S. prisons and in 112 countries. "Crime and violence frustrate every political answer," he has said, "because there can be no solution apart from character and creed." No organization has done more to bring redemption and hope to inmates and their families.

Evangelical megachurches, virtually unheard of 30 years ago, are now vital sources of social welfare in urban America. African American congregations such as the Potter's House in Dallas, founded by Bishop T.D. Jakes, can engage a volunteer army of 28,000 believers in ministries ranging from literacy to drug rehabilitation. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," has organized a vast network of churches to confront the issue of AIDS. "Because of their longevity and trust in the community," Warren has said, "churches can actually do a better job long-term than either governments or" nongovernmental organizations in tackling the pandemic.

Whether or not that's true, these evangelicals -- Bible-believing and socially conservative -- are redefining social justice. They're mindful of the material conditions that breed poverty and despair, but they emphasize spiritual rebirth. Though willing to partner with government agencies, they prefer to work at the grass roots, one family at a time.

Meanwhile, churches and faith-based organizations are growing enormously in their international outreach. Groups such as World Vision are often the first responders to natural disasters. The Association of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations, founded in 1978, now boasts 47 member groups in dozens of countries. As anyone familiar with these organizations knows, they help people regardless of creed, race or sexual orientation -- another democratic (and evangelical) ideal.

It is surely no thirst for theocracy but rather a love for their neighbor that sends American evangelicals into harm's way: into refugee camps in Sudan; into AIDS clinics in Somalia, South Africa and Uganda; into brothels to help women forced into sexual slavery; and into prisons and courts to advocate for the victims of political and religious repression.

Indeed, probably no other religious community in the United States is more connected to the poverty and suffering of people in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that evangelicals offer moral ballast to American foreign policy. "[E]vangelicals who began by opposing Sudanese violence and slave raids against Christians in southern Sudan," he wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, "have gone on to broaden the coalition working to protect Muslims in Darfur."

Of course it's true that a handful of Christian figures reinforce the worst stereotypes of the movement. Their loopy and triumphalist claims are seized upon by lazy journalists and the direct-mail operatives of political opponents.

Yet it is dishonest to disparage the massive civic and democratic contribution of evangelicals by invoking the excesses of a tiny few. As we recall from the Gospels, even Jesus had a few disciples who, after encountering some critics, wanted to call down fire from heaven to dispose of them. Jesus disabused them of that impulse. The overwhelming majority of evangelicals have dispensed with it as well. Maybe it's time more of their critics did the same.

Capitalist Lawyer
14th December 2006, 13:49
Does anybody have anything to say about this article?

t_wolves_fan
14th December 2006, 16:24
Too complicated, to respond with the usual slogans would make one look stupid.

This is the best (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2006/12/a_distinction_with_a_differenc.html) article I've ever seen on America's Christianity.

CubaSocialista
14th December 2006, 18:12
I don't usually stereotype religious people. I actually have no problem with religious people (I'm very close to many Chabadnik Jews). However, once someone starts flaunting their religion as superior, or necessary, or culturally advanced beyond others, OR worse, decides to base their entire view of reality on that religion alone...I can't handle them.

Out of the experiences my family has had with Evangelicals and what I know, see, read, and think, I will never treat an American Evangelical Born-Again as anything more than a ravenous zombie.

I have no problem with religion. However, missionary-style religion and psychotic worldviews and preaching like the one displayed by the Christian Right in the States...

They don't believe in evolution? They honestly believe that eternal torment is a good thing, and that they should never question justice and simply obey?

I just have a hard time telling the difference between a Southern Baptist nutjob like Jack Chick or Ted Haggard or any of those "Rapture-Ready" hacks, and a schizophrenic.

Intellectual47
14th December 2006, 19:32
Believe it or not, Most religious right-wingers hate Ted Haggard as much as you do. I would know. I am one.

We always dislike these people who claim to be Christian and act in the exact opposite of how Christians act. Like those Television preachers who act like their the king of the world. I dislike those people as much as you do.

Capitalist Lawyer
15th December 2006, 02:39
However, once someone starts flaunting their religion as superior, or necessary, or culturally advanced beyond others, OR worse, decides to base their entire view of reality on that religion alone...I can't handle them.

Well...yeah...what sane person couldn't handle those types?

But what about atheists and intellectuals who flaunt their "brilliance" and "superiority" wherever they go?

Only religious people are guilty of this? Don't be so naive.


I actually have no problem with religious people

But I thought, atleast according to communist doctrine, you SHOULD have a problem with religious people? Whether they be fundamentalists or just casual believers in their respective religion?



I just have a hard time telling the difference between a Southern Baptist nutjob like Jack Chick or Ted Haggard or any of those "Rapture-Ready" hacks, and a schizophrenic.

Did you not read the article?

Geez!

LSD
15th December 2006, 03:53
People have the right to believe whatever they want, but there really can be no doubt that as a political force, relgion has done more harm than good.

For each "faith based" charity programs you can name, there are hundred religious groups lobbying against gay rights or against reproductive rights or against medical advances or whatever progressive issue contravenes their "letter from God".

There can be no doubt that there are wonderful religious people out there, but it's disengenuous to imagine that their charity or kindness stems from their religion.

The United States is probably the most religious country in the first world, certainly it's far more religious than it's European counterparts. And yet the United States has a much higher crime rate and a much lower level of social support.

So if there is a relationship between religion and safety, it definitely isn't a positive one.

Personally, I don't think society is so reductable as all that. Plus it's incredibly postmodern to declare that intangibles like "belief" or "religion" are the dominant force in shaping societal relations.

European countries aren't safer than African ones because of "religion", they're safer because of money and because of extensive histories of social welfare programs.

Religious apologists like to make a big deal about how much more "moral" they are than everyone else, but that's PR, nothing more. The reality is that religious people are capable of incredible kindness and horrible atrocity ...just like everybody else.

***

But that's not to say that religion doesn't have a social effect. Unfortunately, religion can actually be quite potent.

You see what religion does is stultify values; because of its fundamental claim of "divine inspiration", it can't change its ideas to match the times. And because it relies implicitly on "faith", it's followers are doctrinaly forbidden from looking beyond the confines of reactionary dogma.

And so while people have every right to believe in invisible fairies if they want, once they start trying to impose those fairies' "values" onto the rest of, we all suffer.

And, besides, religion comes in many forms, not all of them immediately apparent.

The USSR attempted to replace traditional Russian orthdox Christianity with a Stalinist cult of personality. And although the latter was nominally secular, it had a markedly similar social function as religion.

You see the problem with religion isn't the specifics, it's the paradigm that underlies it. So, for instance, changing the details (e.g., swaping "God" for "the party") doesn't do anything to address the real issue, that of "faith" and the suppression of social progress.

As revolutionaries our focus can't be what we're "abolishing", it must be what we're creating. And while that must be a secular and rational society, it must also be a free and equal one.

Ultimately, it's those last two that are the most important.

t_wolves_fan
15th December 2006, 14:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 03:53 am
There can be no doubt that there are wonderful religious people out there, but it's disengenuous to imagine that their charity or kindness stems from their religion.


You have no basis on which to make this claim. Certainly if someone grows up with religion-based values that have led them to share their time and resources to a large degree, then this claim is false.

I assume you are trying to claim that religion is not required for one to be a kind person, which is correct. But just because that is true, it does not mean that religion never helped anyone become more kind and more generous.

In fact, statistical evidence directly refutes your claim. Arthur C. Brooks (http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/), a professor at Syracyse University and a registered independent who is critical of both parties, has a new book that reports conservatives, especially the religious, are more likely to donate to charity than are liberals. This despite the fact that liberals have more money than do conservatives.

I have no doubt you'll simply dismiss this out of hand and claim Brooks is biased, blah blah blah. But just remember, your claim above is incorrect regardless of how convinced you are that it's right.

...


This debate is the very reason I'm a libertarian on social issues. I don't like the idea of religious people enforcing their morality on me, nor do I like the idea of secularists denying religious people the right to be religious and express their religiosity. You culture warriors are nothing but a bunch of arrogant, self-important busy-bodies who desperately need therapy for you deep-seeded need to control others.

Freedom, true freedom and not the kind people like you preach that means "freedom for everyone to live like I think they should", means that there is a marketplace of ideas and regardless of what you think of those ideas, people have the right to express them. And furthermore, people in general have the right to live their lives as they wish without self-important religious or anti-religious moonbats telling them how bad they are.

What is really wrong with that, may I ask?

manic expression
15th December 2006, 18:58
twolvesfan, we've had this conversation before. Why are you claiming these "freedoms" when you haven't told us what they're based on?

Freedom from being badgered by a nutcase is more important than the freedom to be a badgering nutcase. Would you uphold the right of an abusive person to stalk a former spouse? Of course not (or hopefully not), so why should we tolerate such intolerable activity in other forms?

Again, tell us what these "freedoms" are based on. Mill sure didn't.

t_wolves_fan
15th December 2006, 19:11
twolvesfan, we've had this conversation before. Why are you claiming these "freedoms" when you haven't told us what they're based on?

It's simple:


Freedom from being badgered by a nutcase is more important than the freedom to be a badgering nutcase.

What if the nutcase decides that you're a nutcase and now you can't express yourself in public?

It would suck, wouldn't it.

So to prevent either of you nutcases from getting your way, you have to let both of you nutcases badger us.

that's the only fair way to go, isn't it.

Yes or no?

manic expression
15th December 2006, 23:25
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 07:11 pm

twolvesfan, we've had this conversation before. Why are you claiming these "freedoms" when you haven't told us what they're based on?

It's simple:


Freedom from being badgered by a nutcase is more important than the freedom to be a badgering nutcase.

What if the nutcase decides that you're a nutcase and now you can't express yourself in public?

It would suck, wouldn't it.

So to prevent either of you nutcases from getting your way, you have to let both of you nutcases badger us.

that's the only fair way to go, isn't it.

Yes or no?
That happens already. You think people who have leftist beliefs have "freedom"? Of course they don't. I've talked to multiple people who have had anarcho-syndicalist flags taken from them by cops because the cops didn't like them (only to be arrested for "resisting arrest" right afterwards in some cases). Freedom of assembly only applies to the people who don't shake the boat, capitalist freedom only applies to people who aren't aiming to do away with capitalism. Free? Who said the free? Not me.

Like I said, your "freedom" is available only to those who can afford it.

Don't even make me go into the crap that happened to leftists 1910-present. Palmer Raids? McCarthyism? Joe Hill? Fred Hampton? Need I continue?

Oh, and please tell us what these "freedoms" are based on, you have yet to establish this and continue to ignore the issue.

manic expression
15th December 2006, 23:28
And I ask you one more time: when it comes to religion, is it reasonable to expect a society which allows people to pursue religion with the people they want to pursue it with? Is it not unreasonable and disrespectful to open the flood gates of religious bigotry? That is what this topic was originally about, don't stray from it.

LSD
16th December 2006, 00:56
You have no basis on which to make this claim.

I'm not the one making the claim, the thread starter is.

I'm merely pointing that is assumption that religion naturally leads to "charity" is groundless. As, again, indicated by the comparison between the United States and Europe.

If religion were truly correlated with kindness at either an indidual or macrosocietal level, we would expect the the more religious countries to have less poverty and more social programs.

Clearly that's not the case.


Freedom, true freedom and not the kind people like you preach that means "freedom for everyone to live like I think they should", means that there is a marketplace of ideas and regardless of what you think of those ideas, people have the right to express them.

Absolutely. Where have I suggested any differently?

Obviously people have to be stopped from harming others, but the mere act of expression cannot be suppressed no matter how justified you may feel in doing so.

Of course real freedom of expression requires the ability to express; something to which capitalism is fundamentally antithetical. Under capitalist economics, unless you have money, you don't get heard.

Yet another reason that a postcapitalist society will be more free than a "market" one; for religious people as well as for nonreligious.

CubaSocialista
18th December 2006, 03:11
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 15, 2006 02:39 am

However, once someone starts flaunting their religion as superior, or necessary, or culturally advanced beyond others, OR worse, decides to base their entire view of reality on that religion alone...I can't handle them.

Well...yeah...what sane person couldn't handle those types?

But what about atheists and intellectuals who flaunt their "brilliance" and "superiority" wherever they go?

Only religious people are guilty of this? Don't be so naive.


I actually have no problem with religious people

But I thought, atleast according to communist doctrine, you SHOULD have a problem with religious people? Whether they be fundamentalists or just casual believers in their respective religion?



I just have a hard time telling the difference between a Southern Baptist nutjob like Jack Chick or Ted Haggard or any of those "Rapture-Ready" hacks, and a schizophrenic.

Did you not read the article?

Geez!
I am a "communist", but I am not a zombie; I do not adhere to Marxism fanatically or fundamentally. That would be inane.


Yes, I read the article.

And in my opinion, the types that profess atheism as superior to religion, whilst just as arrogant and haughty, at least have some kind of scientific evidence and empirical "proof" behind their finds.

t_wolves_fan
18th December 2006, 14:38
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 15, 2006 11:25 pm
That happens already. You think people who have leftist beliefs have "freedom"? Of course they don't. I've talked to multiple people who have had anarcho-syndicalist flags taken from them by cops because the cops didn't like them (only to be arrested for "resisting arrest" right afterwards in some cases). Freedom of assembly only applies to the people who don't shake the boat, capitalist freedom only applies to people who aren't aiming to do away with capitalism. Free? Who said the free? Not me.

Like I said, your "freedom" is available only to those who can afford it.

Don't even make me go into the crap that happened to leftists 1910-present. Palmer Raids? McCarthyism? Joe Hill? Fred Hampton? Need I continue?

Oh, and please tell us what these "freedoms" are based on, you have yet to establish this and continue to ignore the issue.
I see you've fled from my question like a typical coward.

Assuming you were engaged in peaceful assembly and protest (which is a big assumption with people like you), the police were 100% wrong to take your cute little banners.

The cops taking your precious flags is no different than your desire to ban religious expression: they both limit freedom of expression of opinion.

As for your bogus claim that freedom of expression exists only for those who can afford it, you do not have a leg to stand on. "Expression" means expressing yourself. If you cannot afford to purchase TV time then you can stand on a corner with a sign. I've seen people do it. I've seen people do it in front of the White House for hours on end while suffering no harrassment from the police.

I think your problem, which is a safe assumption given your complaints thus far, is that you think freedom of expression means your ideas have to be accepted. They do not. We are under no obligation to take your opinion seriously or pay any attention to it. Nobody has the right to have their opinion taken seriously or accepted. All they have, just like you have with your silly little flags and banners, is the right to express it.

Capice?

Where does freedom come from? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Whether it comes from God, the people, a written document or your dog the simple point is this: limits of individual freedom, especially the expression of opinion, should be as limited as possible. This means those limits should exist only on opinions that actually harm people, such as stalking or child pornography or libel or serious threats. Offending you does not harm you. You should know that, since you obviously seek to offend the "establishment" as much as possible.

Would you like to argue that point? Would you like to argue that individual freedom should be limited? Go ahead, sport. While you're doing it consider why a whopping .05% of the world's population agrees with you.

As for the past, so what? Do past limits on freedom of expression grant you a right to limit others' freedom of expression? Hell no. What happened in the past is wrong. Justice does not mean addressing wrongs with revenge, at least if you're half way mature.

As for this:


And I ask you one more time: when it comes to religion, is it reasonable to expect a society which allows people to pursue religion with the people they want to pursue it with? Is it not unreasonable and disrespectful to open the flood gates of religious bigotry? That is what this topic was originally about, don't stray from it.

Your questions don't even make any sense. It is reasonable to permit people to practice their religion and express their religion so long as nobody's individual rights are violated (hence human sacrifice should be illegal). And continuing the question you ran away from, it is not reasonable to ban expression merely because it offends someone.

t_wolves_fan
18th December 2006, 15:00
I'm merely pointing that is assumption that religion naturally leads to "charity" is groundless. As, again, indicated by the comparison between the United States and Europe.

If religion were truly correlated with kindness at either an indidual or macrosocietal level, we would expect the the more religious countries to have less poverty and more social programs.

Clearly that's not the case.

As with everything else, you have it backwards.

Europe is more secular than the United States, which is why they put their faith in the state to solve social ills. Americans, being more religious, put their faith in charity and individual success.

You equate government spending with charity. Americans do not. Look up sometime how much more individuals in America voluntarily donate to charity than do Europeans. That will answer your question, though I doubt you'll accept the answer.


Of course real freedom of expression requires the ability to express; something to which capitalism is fundamentally antithetical. Under capitalist economics, unless you have money, you don't get heard.

Patently untrue. The right is of the individual to express himself, not to have the means of expression provided for him. If you cannot afford to buy a TV commercial, you make a sandwich board and stand in the park. You are expressing yourself, hence excercising your right.


Yet another reason that a postcapitalist society will be more free than a "market" one; for religious people as well as for nonreligious.

Until Doom and the like eliminate your faction in a purge. :lol:

manic expression
30th December 2006, 05:45
Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 18, 2006 02:38 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 18, 2006 02:38 pm)
manic [email protected] 15, 2006 11:25 pm
That happens already. You think people who have leftist beliefs have "freedom"? Of course they don't. I've talked to multiple people who have had anarcho-syndicalist flags taken from them by cops because the cops didn't like them (only to be arrested for "resisting arrest" right afterwards in some cases). Freedom of assembly only applies to the people who don't shake the boat, capitalist freedom only applies to people who aren't aiming to do away with capitalism. Free? Who said the free? Not me.

Like I said, your "freedom" is available only to those who can afford it.

Don't even make me go into the crap that happened to leftists 1910-present. Palmer Raids? McCarthyism? Joe Hill? Fred Hampton? Need I continue?

Oh, and please tell us what these "freedoms" are based on, you have yet to establish this and continue to ignore the issue.
I see you've fled from my question like a typical coward.

Assuming you were engaged in peaceful assembly and protest (which is a big assumption with people like you), the police were 100% wrong to take your cute little banners.

The cops taking your precious flags is no different than your desire to ban religious expression: they both limit freedom of expression of opinion.

As for your bogus claim that freedom of expression exists only for those who can afford it, you do not have a leg to stand on. "Expression" means expressing yourself. If you cannot afford to purchase TV time then you can stand on a corner with a sign. I've seen people do it. I've seen people do it in front of the White House for hours on end while suffering no harrassment from the police.

I think your problem, which is a safe assumption given your complaints thus far, is that you think freedom of expression means your ideas have to be accepted. They do not. We are under no obligation to take your opinion seriously or pay any attention to it. Nobody has the right to have their opinion taken seriously or accepted. All they have, just like you have with your silly little flags and banners, is the right to express it.

Capice?

Where does freedom come from? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Whether it comes from God, the people, a written document or your dog the simple point is this: limits of individual freedom, especially the expression of opinion, should be as limited as possible. This means those limits should exist only on opinions that actually harm people, such as stalking or child pornography or libel or serious threats. Offending you does not harm you. You should know that, since you obviously seek to offend the "establishment" as much as possible.

Would you like to argue that point? Would you like to argue that individual freedom should be limited? Go ahead, sport. While you're doing it consider why a whopping .05% of the world's population agrees with you.

As for the past, so what? Do past limits on freedom of expression grant you a right to limit others' freedom of expression? Hell no. What happened in the past is wrong. Justice does not mean addressing wrongs with revenge, at least if you're half way mature.

As for this:


And I ask you one more time: when it comes to religion, is it reasonable to expect a society which allows people to pursue religion with the people they want to pursue it with? Is it not unreasonable and disrespectful to open the flood gates of religious bigotry? That is what this topic was originally about, don't stray from it.

Your questions don't even make any sense. It is reasonable to permit people to practice their religion and express their religion so long as nobody's individual rights are violated (hence human sacrifice should be illegal). And continuing the question you ran away from, it is not reasonable to ban expression merely because it offends someone. [/b]
The cops took our flags because they didn't like the political message (using adjectives like "cute" is just stupid for many reasons, especially because using tools such as banners and flags is something that all protests utilize), period. The message is not liked, so it is suppressed. This is nothing new, this is the MO of a capitalist society. This goes a lot further than flags. It's extremely difficult for leftists to hold a protest or any action without harrasment. I can cite many, many, many examples, some from personal experience. The fact is that this exclusivity of "freedom" is something that capitalism naturally promotes and defends. Once again, "freedom" is only available to those who can afford it.

What you are fleeing from is the FACT that our speech will never be fully tolerated in a capitalist society (even Mill outlines how, although discreetly). Our flags will always be seen as dangerous, our protests will always be seen as unacceptable. That is something that goes hand-in-hand with capitalism and can be witnessed from before 1842, and there's no getting around it.

The difference between politcal flags and religious expression is just that: one is political, which pertains to societal discourse, while the other is religious, which does not. Sorry, but you can't change this.

And if you had any shred of perspective, you would've grasped the insipid nature of your argument. First, you can read testimonies on this very forum of people "standing on a corner" while expressing political beliefs and getting harassed by the cops. Ignoring this, this mode of expression, practically the only mode left to those without money and power, is less than minimal. In essence, it does nothing, and so there is no response. However, things like protests, which do have a presence and which do garner more attention and momentum, ARE routinely repressed by the state. They don't have to repress types of expression which don't matter.

First, I've rebuked the very idea of "freedom of expression", it's a concept which I see as having no real basis, so your argument can't hold water already. Next, you addressed something I never said, for my point was that our ideas cannot be fairly considered in the first place, as we have no medium from which to express them. Being "taken seriously" has nothing to do with this; being able to say something effectively does. Oh, and our cute little flags will never be truly tolerated, for they present a grave threat to your putrid and unjust system.

Right, you don't know. "Freedom" is a concept which society defines, it is something that is not natural, it is something that is not based in anything but the minds of people. In essence, it is transitive, it is ultimately invalid. Give me a real answer on the foundations of "freedom", not the same tired old rhetoric, because then you just might have a point (right now, you don't).

How could I possibly argue to limit something you can't even fully define? More than this, unchecked expression is unnecessarily harmful to all parties, a mockery of the community and simply detrimental in many ways. The community and the people are more important than someone's (unfounded) "right" to violate and disrupt other people's lives.

Just in case you didn't notice: not having child labor, emancipation, women's suffrage and other ideas were extremely unpopular at points in history. Was their unpopularity indicative of their worth? I didn't think so.

The past shows, beyond any doubt, that leftism has never been tolerated, that "free speech" has never extended to those deemed unfit by the rich. History demonstrates the fact that "free speech" is something you have to be able to afford. Did the leftists in SDS, IWW, CPUSA, BPP and more ever have "free speech"? NO, and such ideas never will in capitalist societies.

So what are these "individual rights" that cannot be violated? Do they include the "right" to be undisturbed in a park? Why or why not? Do they include the "right" to not be preached to? Why or why not? Do they include a "right" to a truly public area? You must precisely define these "rights". Next, you did not explain your answer: why is it unreasonable?

RevMARKSman
30th December 2006, 12:04
As for the past, so what? Do past limits on freedom of expression grant you a right to limit others' freedom of expression? Hell no. What happened in the past is wrong. Justice does not mean addressing wrongs with revenge, at least if you're half way mature.

Who the fuck said we were searching for an abstract ideal of "JUSTICE"? Leftists want communism--power to the working class, free association, and the abolition of money and wage-slavery. Most of us want to kill most or all of the capitalist class during the revolution.

Now define "justice", "right" and "wrong". Tell me exactly how revenge is "wrong" and how what happened in the past is "wrong". Some of us may be leftists because they think communism is "right", but most of us do this because communism is what we WANT.