What will happen to the priests?

[Yardstick]

In a socialist society what would happen to say, an episcopal priest who runs a church, leads worship on sunday, is open to marrying homosexuals, and in general agrees with socialist thought?

Will he still be taken to the shed and shot?

Will he be forced to to get a new job, even if the parishioners of his church want him to stay?

Forced to renounce his God?

[Bud Struggle]

In a socialist society what would happen to say, an episcopal priest who runs a church, leads worship on sunday, is open to marrying homosexuals, and in general agrees with socialist thought?

Will he still be taken to the shed and shot?

Will he be forced to to get a new job, even if the parishioners of his church want him to stay?

Forced to renounce his God?

They could get jobs writing for the New York Daily Tribune. :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Nothing will happen, obviously. Nothing will happen to anyone except those people who take up arms against socialism, or give aid to those who take up arms against socialism.

The church building and grounds will become the property of the local community, though, and they can decide what to do with it.

[Bud Struggle]

Seems like the best job during and after the Revolution--Undertaker.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Nah. True revolutionaries need no undertaker! Just look at comrade Lenin! :lol:

And for that matter, I don't think Tsar Nicky cared much for undertakers either. Heh.

[al8]

I would demand that he lay low or face public execution as an enemy of the people. Church holdings would be confiscated and religious architecture demolished. Oppertunistic whoring towards socialism by a superstition mongerer should fool noone, especially in a radicalized society.

[Killfacer]

thats going to go down well throughout the catholic world.

[PigmerikanMao]

This hypothetical priest seems progressive. All progressive peoples should be liberated, not destroyed by revolution. The only priests that should be shot behind a shed are non-progressives like the Westboro Baptist Church. :rolleyes:

[F9]

NOONE is going to die for what he believes and noone is going to force to do anything.Its their choice,and their choice only.

Fuserg9:star:

[Decolonize The Left]

In a socialist society what would happen to say, an episcopal priest who runs a church, leads worship on sunday, is open to marrying homosexuals, and in general agrees with socialist thought?

Well, given that this priest is openly furthering the submission of a group of people to a metaphysical concept which cannot be proved... Sure this priest is "progressive," but in a socialist society marriage will mean little. And if this priest "in general agrees with socialist thought," then he/she certainly understands the absurdity of worshiping a deity.


Will he still be taken to the shed and shot?

Of course not, that's what fascists do. Given your awkward hypothetical situation, this priest will be addressed by the community and his/her actions debated and discussed by those affected.


Will he be forced to to get a new job, even if the parishioners of his church want him to stay?

Being a priest is not a job - especially not in a socialist society. So he/she will be asked to contribute to society in a meaningful fashion.


Forced to renounce his God?

If by this you mean succumb to logic and coherent thought, then he/she will not be forced, but this would be nice. I personally have issues with organized religion, but none with individuals being spiritual and/or possessing asinine spiritual beliefs.

- August

[PigmerikanMao]

NOONE is going to die for what he believes and noone is going to force to do anything.Its their choice,and their choice only.

Fuserg9:star:
I disagree wholeheartedly! :laugh:

~PMao :hammersickle:

[lombas]

It's up to the community to decide.

Personally, I'd say: let's give this fucker something more intellectually challenging to do.

[mykittyhasaboner]

the priest would be crucified of course! :laugh::p

[pusher robot]

Why does communism attract such hateful people?

By the way, I find it really "interesting" how opining that there may be something ethically wrong with killing fully-formed babies is an insta-restrictable offense, but believing that peaceful people should be executed for having wrong beliefs is apparently fully consistent with this board's core beliefs.

I hope the more thoughtful members are ashamed of these people.

[Decolonize The Left]

Why does communism attract such hateful people?

By the way, I find it really "interesting" how opining that there may be something ethically wrong with killing fully-formed babies is an insta-restrictable offense, but believing that peaceful people should be executed for having wrong beliefs is apparently fully consistent with this board's core beliefs.

I hope the more thoughtful members are ashamed of these people.

It seems as though a few of those posting to kill the priest were joking, and the others probably haven't thought it through all the way.

And furthermore, organized religion might be the most hateful institution ever created. Need proof? Open a history book.

- August

[Lynx]

The separation of church and state should be sufficient for the transitional period.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Burn the churches, kill the priests, rape the alter boys, and then summon Satan as a level 34 warlord. *Shrugs.* Hey, if Von Mises fanboys are going to warn about doomsday...

[al8]

People would not be executed for their beliefs, but what they do with them. If a spreader of superstition makes himself or herself a target it is their fault.

[Killfacer]

what do you mean "made themselves a target". I dont like religion, but your all sounding pretty violent.

[Jazzratt]

The church would be seized and used as the community sees fit. The priest would probably be allowed to continue preaching as long as his congregation consisted of mentally stable, consenting adults. I do imagine, though, that he would have to spend a lot of time defending his beliefs from the various philosophers, academics and educators in the community.

[al8]

what do you mean "made themselves a target". I dont like religion, but your all sounding pretty violent.

I see supertition as loathsome. The common rank and file suckers I can scorn but yet have some sympathies for, but the hard core charlatans self-duped or not are totally unnacceptable. My stance is often misconstrued as wanting to brainwash people or persecute them purely for their thoughts. But this is a strawman. But however if there was a delete button for supertstion in the head of the fooled I would't hesitate to push it. But I'm not that lucky. What I am for is quarantining religion so that it can in no way infect itself on to the next generation by (1)making any kind of superstitious expression socially unnacceptable, by (2) demoralizing the social units that promote and identify with religious superstition by among other things making an example of the leading and openly superstitious charlatans. In short making religious superstition eventually disappear from public space, by not allowing it public presence.

I want religion, all religion to be wiped out (or fatally deminished) by the same means they have wipe each other out for centuries. Not neclecting modern context. So what I advocate is a multi-faceted method against religion that does not negelct the use of violence when needed, that will hit religion harder than a ton of bricks. I do not advocate violece solely but as a healthy and nescessary part of a bigger onslought against it.

[Killfacer]

i find superstition loathsome. But i am not so blind as to see that it can be wiped about my killings. Im also not so blind as to see that any attempt to kill a generally kind yet religous man is not only deplorable but dispicable.

[al8]

Killing is a minor part but a nescissary scare tactic. A show of force and bad-mother-fucker-hood.

[Trystan]

In a socialist society what would happen to say, an episcopal priest who runs a church, leads worship on sunday, is open to marrying homosexuals, and in general agrees with socialist thought?



Great.


Will he still be taken to the shed and shot?

No. I don't think anybody should be shot.


Will he be forced to to get a new job, even if the parishioners of his church want him to stay?

No.


Forced to renounce his God

No.

Not in my idea of a free, highly democratic society, anyway. :rolleyes:

Killfacer:


Im also not so blind as to see that any attempt to kill a generally kind yet religous man is not only deplorable but dispicable.

I agree.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

There is of course the one problem with religion under any guise. It's devisive nature, telling it's practitioners that they are to be rewarded for obsessive irrationality or 'devoted faith' if you care to call it such. As such has no place in a enlightened democratic society.

Choosing to believe a lie that teaches you to look down on people who are 'wicked' does not promote unity, efficiency or freedom. The religious imperetive to preach compromises the stability of any group of people as factions clash and the promoting of irrational faith leads to crippling superstitious fear.

Better simply to remove the source of divisive propoganda at the root. Throw off the reassuringly imprisoning shroud of superstition and embrace science as the answer to the questions of life.

To my knowledge there have been far fewer wars over scientific theory than religious faith.

It is better to be wary of a real entity (like a government) that makes hard choices for the greater good than to be terrified of a fake entity (like a deity) that causes real people to threaten you with lakes of fire if you don't behave.

[pusher robot]

It is better to be wary of a real entity (like a government) that makes hard choices for the greater good than to be terrified of a fake entity (like a deity) that causes real people to threaten you with lakes of fire if you don't behave.

And do you take it as your right to force others to make "better" choices?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I want religion, all religion to be wiped out (or fatally deminished) by the same means they have wipe each other out for centuries.
And it never occurred to you that before you can use the same methods that have been used in the past by religious fanatics, you must first become a religious fanatic yourself?

There is such a thing as religious fervor. It can inspire people to do great things, good or bad, in the name of their faith. I never heard of atheist fervor though. Religions have fought so effectively against each other for centuries only because they were each driven by unshakable faith, fanatical devotion to their cause, and the conviction that it was their holy mission to convert the unbelievers.

So, um, good luck giving atheists some of that unshakable faith, fanatical devotion to their cause, and conviction that it is their holy mission to convert the unbelievers. It will be funny to watch.

[PigmerikanMao]

Is a moral opposition to abortion on this board really a restrictable offense? That doesn't make sense...

~PMao :confused:

[F9]

Is a moral opposition to abortion on this board really a restrictable offense? That doesn't make sense...

~PMao :confused:

you are starting a BIG conversation again,you could find the old abortion topics and see there!just make a little search!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[al8]

And it never occurred to you that before you can use the same methods that have been used in the past by religious fanatics, you must first become a religious fanatic yourself?.

It's irreligious fanatic. And I think that I and other fanatics don't have to mimic exact motivations the way you describe. Only take the effective methods and apply them. You are sadly religious so I can understand why you think and espouse things in religious terms. Irreligious humans can have the same amount of conviction the religious have, only they (correctly) base it within the framework of reason and not faith.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If it's a low-level parish priest, I see no problem sparing them (unless they take up arms).

On the other hand, I have no problems with executing on the spot the megachurch "pastor"-businessmen (here I'm referring to the "megachurch" phenomenon in the US Bible Belt), who will doubtlessly preach, through their Big-$$$ media, socially reactionary and politically counter-revolutionary propaganda while playing the "Tribulation" card as the initial "victims" of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle. :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

i find superstition loathsome. But i am not so blind as to see that it can be wiped about my killings. Im also not so blind as to see that any attempt to kill a generally kind yet religous man is not only deplorable but dispicable.

I suspect not everyone is serious.

[Bud Struggle]

Irreligious humans can have the same amount of conviction the religious have, only they (correctly) base it within the framework of reason and not faith.

Indeed. Even up to the point of being foam in the mouth fanatics. :)


I suspect not everyone is serious. But just enough are to make it a bit scarey.

[Dean]

Being a priest is not a job - especially not in a socialist society. So he/she will be asked to contribute to society in a meaningful fashion.
How are you to say that? Are all artists now unproductive, too? Who decides who is a productive worker, and who isn't?

[Killfacer]

Killing is a minor part but a nescissary scare tactic. A show of force and bad-mother-fucker-hood.



That is the statement of a fucking idiot. What kind of delusional fuckwit are you? You can barely string together a sentace (something i am often accused of admittedly) yet you're vindicating killing perfectly "nice" people in order to scare people. That is clearly morally wrong. Your veiws would be unnacceptable to any moderate and that is why an arsehole like you could never get into power. Thank fuck for that.

[al8]

In comes the moderate discorse. I'm no advocate of spinless dulled down action. So get over it already. Violence is a healthy and natural part of some undertakings. I'm simply advocating the full force removal of religious superstition, and I want some intelligently guided violence in there with the larger secular onslought. And note; I'm not advocating against "niceness". That hypothetical priest can be nice all he wants as long as he makes his religion a secret and dosn't spew it on others proactively, especially at children.

[Bud Struggle]

Killing is a minor part but a nescissary scare tactic. A show of force and bad-mother-fucker-hood.



That is the statement of a fucking idiot. What kind of delusional fuckwit are you? You can barely string together a sentace (something i am often accused of admittedly) yet you're vindicating killing perfectly "nice" people in order to scare people. That is clearly morally wrong. Your veiws would be unnacceptable to any moderate and that is why an arsehole like you could never get into power. Thank fuck for that.

And this is why there won't be any Revolution.

You couple these "kill everyone that dosen't think like me" crowd with the "Capitalists are developing uber-killer-androids" set and nobody ever is going to take Communism seriously.

They make a wonderful team. It's humorous, but it's a dark humor.

[Demogorgon]

And this is why there won't be any Revolution.

You couple these "kill everyone that dosen't think like me" crowd with the "Capitalists are developing uber-killer-androids" set and nobody ever is going to take Communism seriously.

They make a wonderful team. It's humorous, but it's a dark humor.

It really makes me think that Jacob is onto something when he wants to change our name. I think nothing like these idiots but am tarred with the same brush. Still i doubt many people over the age of twenty here subscribe to either of those crowds.

al8 is a complete sociopath incidentally, and doesn't represent communist views in any respect.

[al8]

Tomk it sounds a bit like you are daydreaming. The thing is violence settles arguments, enforces strictures. It is a tool. If the working class is to have the confidence to rule they have to hava a tough skin and not be afraid to wield force, just as the capitalist class isn't squimish about it.

[Demogorgon]

only they (correctly) base it within the framework of reason and not faith.

Given that you are advocating the slaughter of anybody who expresses disagreement with you, we can safely assume you don't have a single bone of reason in your body. So what does that make you?

[al8]

al8 is a complete sociopath incidentally, and doesn't represent communist views in any respect.

No, it is your view on this issue that is half-baked and lame. I am not a sociopath I am simply a realist, a friend of my friends and an enemy of to enemy and honest. I do not shy away from showing open hostility towards religion and the organized religious. People need to stop beeing wishy-washy about this. There is little hope to end religion with solely rationally discussing it with people who reject reason as a principle. Practical real life things need to be done. They're access to uncritical and defenceless children needs to be cut for one thing. And fostering staunch resistence to the public presence of religion another.

[Demogorgon]

No, it is your view on this issue that is half-baked and lame. I am not a sociopath I am simply a realist, a friend of my friends and an enemy of my enemy and honest. I do not shy away from showing open hostility towards religion and the organized religious. People need to stop beeing wishy-washy about this. There is little hope to end religion with solely rationally discussing it with people who reject reason as a principle. Practical real life things need to be done. They're access to uncritical and defenceless children needs to be cut for one thing. And fostering staunch resistence to the public presence of religion another.

And why exactly does religion need to be ended anyway? Other than you being an angry little boy who blames his problems on religion, I mean.

You are far less rational than just about any religious person I have ever encountered and could never in a million years come up with a good argument for atheism, so you are in no position to discuss rationality.

[al8]

Given that you are advocating the slaughter of anybody who expresses disagreement with you, we can safely assume you don't have a single bone of reason in your body. So what does that make you?

Again you are inccorrect. Your premise is false. I do not "advocate the slaughter of anybody who expresses disagreement with me". I have only talked about priests here after/during the revolution. There is a difference with a healthy dissagrement with friends and then ones dealings with an intransigent enemy.

[al8]

And why exactly does religion need to be ended anyway? Other than you being an angry little boy who blames his problems on religion, I mean.

You are far less rational than just about any religious person I have ever encountered and could never in a million years come up with a good argument for atheism, so you are in no position to discuss rationality.

But you must realize this is not solely about arguments. That is where you fail. Child intoctrination has nothing to do with rational argument or informed consent. That is indeed how most people get religion stuck in their heads. I am interested in the material aspects of what perpetuates religion. Social respectability and access to kids are two very large material factors. Takle them and you are really tacling with religion.

[pusher robot]

The thing is violence settles arguments, enforces strictures. It is a tool.

Boromir (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000293/): It is a gift. A gift to the foes of Mordor. Why not use this ring? Long has my father, the Steward of Gondor, kept the forces of Mordor at bay. By the blood of our people are your lands kept safe. Give Gondor the weapon of the enemy. Let us use it against him.
Aragorn (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001557/): You cannot wield it. None of us can. The One Ring answers to Sauron alone. It has no other master.

[Demogorgon]

But you must realize this is not solely about arguments. That is where you fail. Child intoctrination has nothing to do with rational argument or informed consent. That is indeed how most people get religion stuck in their heads. I am interested in the material aspects of what perpetuates religion. Social respectability and access to kids are two very large material factors. Takle them and you are really tacling with religion.And what would you indoctrinate kids with? Certainly the notion that it is alright to use violence against people who have different viewpoints. A rather more dangerous proposition than religion really.

I am very keen on promotion rationality, and for that reason I favour being religious for rational reasons over being irreligious for irrational reasons as you are. Obvious being non-religious for rational reasons is the best outcome for me, but I am far keener that people be sensible and reasoned, and for that reason I regard you as far worse than religious people.

[al8]

And what would you indoctrinate kids with? Certainly the notion that it is alright to use violence against people who have different viewpoints. A rather more dangerous proposition than religion really.

Well I would't call it intoctrination rather it's opposite. But the superstious might call it just that, intoctrination. It's one of those relative things. All the same, let's just call it secular intoctrination for now to be brunt and to the point. It would involve intoctrinating the core valuse of science, reason and skepticality into the child. Might also involve giving the child a comparative religious classes by a strict atheist.

I think it would be easy enough to advoce the specific use of violence and avoid only giving of a notion. We kill animals for food but that 'notion' dosen't drive people to hunt or breed humans for food, which are indeed also animals. Violence is always justified or not justified in context.



I am very keen on promotion rationality, and for that reason I favour being religious for rational reasons over being irreligious for irrational reasons as you are. Obvious being non-religious for rational reasons is the best outcome for me, but I am far keener that people be sensible and reasoned, and for that reason I regard you as far worse than religious people.

I would have had to deconvert on this board so that it would register with you. So that you could then and only then accept that it indeed happened and consequently review my reasons to see if they where rally rational or not. But such occurances do happen outside this board. I've been there done that, long time ago. And I must spare you the tedious history for practicalities sake. I'm irreligious, I guess, for about the same reasons you are. What differatiates us is that I belief in a brunt and fanatical final solution to religion that takes on and halts its material and supra-rational means of spreading itself, wheras you do not.

[Bud Struggle]

What differatiates us is that I belief in a brunt and fanatical final solution to religion that takes on and halts its material and supra-rational means of spreading itself, wheras you do not.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/702/spanishinquisition682d6nf7.png

Yup. Just when you least expect them. ;):)

[Random Precision]

Boy am I glad that we now have al8 around to help us figure out the correct approach to religion. We might have just gone ahead with what those morons Marx and Engels thought about religion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-perspectives-religion-t85163/index.html) instead! But now that we have him around to set us straight, surely the revolution will be successful. :rolleyes:

[al8]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/702/spanishinquisition682d6nf7.png

Yup. Just when you least expect them. ;):)

http://i510.photobucket.com/albums/s349/skra1212/spanish-inquisition-04.jpg

[al8]

Boy am I glad that we now have al8 around to help us figure out the correct approach to religion. We might have just gone ahead with what those morons Marx and Engels thought about religion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-perspectives-religion-t85163/index.html) instead! But now that we have him around to set us straight, surely the revolution will be successful. :rolleyes:

Go easy Random Precision, I will make a response to your sticky in good time. But in short I do not think that my position and that of Marx to be mutually exclusive. I have allways advocated a multi-faceted responce to religion, it seems only the more forcful aspects that seem controversial and upsetting to some people.

[Killfacer]

violence is a tool? You are an idiot. Can you not see how the beleif you hold in this matter will stop your sort from ever getting into power?

I dont agree with demogorgon on everything but i do sympathise with him. Many communists are tarred with idiotic statements made by sociopathic conspiracy theorists.

[pusher robot]

What differatiates us is that I belief in a brunt and fanatical final solution to religion that takes on and halts its material and supra-rational means of spreading itself, wheras you do not.

Mmmmm, yes, nothing so progressive as a good old-fashioned "final solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution)."

[Yardstick]

I have trouble understanding how you condemn violence done by Capitalists but then support unprovoked violence against the religious on the other hand.

This seems inconsistent.

Just a little FYI, I'm not a priest yet, but the description I gave above is where I see myself in a few years. That way you can atleast know your telling me to my face that you would like to kill me.

[Plagueround]

What differatiates us is that I belief in a brunt and fanatical final solution to religion that takes on and halts its material and supra-rational means of spreading itself, wheras you do not.

You will never be able to suppress a religion by killing its leaders. Human beings (faith, delusion, reality, Jayne's bicameral schizoid theory, etc.) are spiritual creatures. Some people manifest that spirituality by believing in God, others by worshiping the sun or a Luke Skywalker action figure, some do it by believing in the power of their own mind, the human spirit, a great revolution...the list goes on.

What you are proposing is authoritarian drivel that is not only inherently dangerous, but counter productive to the goals you are working toward. If the idea is human progress, you will get nowhere by trampling the belief of others in such a fascist manner. All you'll likely accomplish is turning the people against the movement that so many of us have invested in. Do you think the people will sit by and go "oh well, they killed all our priests and are suppressing our means of spiritual fulfillment...don't worry though Comrade, at least we don't have Capitalism anymore!" or do you think they will react fearfully and violently, putting up opposition to everything you want to do?

Priests aren't nearly as counter revolutionary as you are.

[al8]

I have trouble understanding how you condemn violence done by Capitalists but then support unprovoked violence against the religious on the other hand.

This seems inconsistent.

Just a little FYI, I'm not a priest yet, but the description I gave above is where I see myself in a few years. That way you can atleast know your telling me to my face that you would like to kill me.

Again, I'm not against violence only how it's at times used. Often when people bemoan the violence of the capitalist class it is done in abstract terms, that is, violence is decried in the abstract because people find it rhetorically viable I guess.

Note that I do not perticularly 'want' to kill you or that hypothetical person that you will perhaps become, it is merely that I find it an acceptable measure in forcing religion underground. If you'd stay religious but so only in private, there would be no need for fuss.

[Killfacer]

you attempt to sound ruthless and efficiant. Instead you sound callous and unpleasant.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In comes the moderate discorse. I'm no advocate of spinless dulled down action. So get over it already. Violence is a healthy and natural part of some undertakings.
The point is that you'll never get more than a tiny minority of people on your side if you openly advocate violence against unarmed enemies (no matter who they are - priests, capitalists, or anyone else).

You can't have a revolution unless you can persuade the working class to join you. And you'll never persuade the working class to join you if you openly advocate violence against "nice" (= non-violent) people.

The goal of the revolutionary left is not to be fanatical or uncompromising for the sake of it. The goal is not to make us feel good about ourselves. The goal is to win, comrade, by any means necessary. You keep saying that violence may be necessary, and that's true, but don't forget that diplomacy and tact is even more necessary.


Note that I do not perticularly 'want' to kill you or that hypothetical person that you will perhaps become, it is merely that I find it an acceptable measure in forcing religion underground. If you'd stay religious but so only in private, there would be no need for fuss.
'Cause it worked so well when the Romans tried it, right?

If you told me that I must keep my religion a secret or face death, I would pretend to agree to keep it a secret, and then I would immediately start looking for ways to kill you. Note that I do not perticularly 'want' to kill you or that hypothetical political leader that you will perhaps become, it is merely that I find it an acceptable measure in fighting a totalitarian regime.

When you have a strong enemy that is willing to make a lot of compromises, as religion is today, only an idiot would insist on a fight to the death.

[CanadianCommunist]

The only religious people i would shoot if i ran my country would be the damn Jehovas Witness. They can all stand in front of a firing squad in my regime. but as for the main religions let em stay :thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have trouble understanding how you condemn violence done by Capitalists but then support unprovoked violence against the religious on the other hand.

This seems inconsistent.

Just a little FYI, I'm not a priest yet, but the description I gave above is where I see myself in a few years. That way you can atleast know your telling me to my face that you would like to kill me.

You've been talking to rebellious teenagers. Don't worry, more rational, adult-age folks like us aren't after you (unless you decide to become a "megachurch" pastor or something).

[Killfacer]

Personally i dislike religion. I think it is irrational. But i certainly do condone killing people in order to stop it or "force it undeground". Religion has slowly ceeded ground to science for centuries. Hopefully one day we will be without it but killing people over it is unjustifiable and wrong.

[PigmerikanMao]

The only religious people i would shoot if i ran my country would be the damn Jehovas Witness. They can all stand in front of a firing squad in my regime. but as for the main religions let em stay :thumbup1:

Wow, that was pretty damn offensive there. :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

Wow, that was pretty damn offensive there. :laugh:

Right up there with "the only religious people I would shoot would be the Jews."

It's best not to single out religions.

[PigmerikanMao]

Right up there with "the only religious people I would shoot would be the Jews."

It's best not to single out religions.

Agreed, it's either a hate all or hate none issue. Singling out a specific religion is called bigotry in many cases isn't it? :laugh:

[Yardstick]

How is singling out one not ok but singling them all ok? That seems inconsistent.

Example: I don't hate just the French, I hate all immigrants."

[Dean]

How is singling out one not ok but singling them all ok? That seems inconsistent.

Example: I don't hate just the French, I hate all immigrants."

Example: we shouldn't let anyone have power versus we shouldn't let Jews have power.

Oops, you're a bigot.

[Yardstick]

What?

I think your example is a rather watered down version of what they are talking about. Try: I don't hate just jews in power, I hate all in power.

At this point it's rather clear that many on this site, do in fact hate the people in power. While I see it more as I'm frustrated with those in power and believe it would be in everyones best interests if none where in power. I don't see the bigotry in that. However if one said they hated an entire class of people, that would seem closer to bigotry.