Opponents of Social Progress (In The Bedrooms of the Nation II)

Update:

Due to a moderation queue flooded with mind-numbing racist, Islamophobic and homophobic freeps as well as a reasonable question about singling people out, this post is withdrawn for the moment, until I can decide how I should address that question and also re-examine my moderation policy.

I’m normally not that big on censorship, but apparently, I’m going to have to make exceptions.

This post will be back, although perhaps tweaked.

About these ads
    • Doc
    • April 26th, 2011

    Yeah, those Christian Nationalists are a major threat to Our Way of Life. We ought to force them to wear a yellow ‘C’ on their clothes. Preperatory to some other, more Final Solution.

      • dentedbluemercedes
      • April 26th, 2011

      Seriously?

      When people have taken on a perspective that says that my very existence is a threat to all humanity, I think I have a right to be aware of who they are and where their perspective comes from. Especially if many of them are pretty open about having a belief that their perspective should be enacted as law.

      Being aware of people and challenging their rhetoric is hardly persecution.

        • Doc
        • April 26th, 2011

        No, but your plodding humorless take on it is unintentionally hilarious.

        O well. Denial is hard to break thru. Fortunately those who hold the worldview that you espouse tend to reproduce poorly. Whereas us eeevil raaacist rightwing Christian fundies tend to be a bit more, shall we say, robust in that department. As an example, my 3 older sibs, atheists all, have only 2 children amongst them. I have four myself, so I’ve all ready got them outvoted.

        Plus we neanderthals are often armed (at least in the US; sorry Canadian Christian-cons: you should move south, eh?), so it would be more difficult to pull a Rwanda on us, even if the atheistic/homosexual-enabling/statist/’progressive’ crowd could pull it together enough to try. Just think of it as survival of the fittest. Evolution in action. Last man standing.

    • mintgreybmw
    • April 26th, 2011

    I hate to denigrate the lesser species, dementedbluemercedes, but you are an imbecile. You think you are such an expert on the hidden motives of your perceived enemies, but are completely blind to the real threats to freedom and to your type of granola-munching squirrel-brains.

    Here are the facts:

    Canada is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles that has been warped by years of liberal-nihilist rule and socialist-nihilist indoctrination of our children in public schools.

    “Multiculturalism” really means “any culture but our own.”

    A lack of culture and moral codes is not a substitute for them, and like in nature, our cultural vacuum will be filled by the beliefs and rules of other, less Christian, folk.

    The Quran mandates the conversion or death of all infidels and the death of all homosexuals. Muslims believe the Quran to be the literal word of god, and truly devoted Muslims are compelled to carry out the orders of god, as demonstrated by the stoning of rape victims in Afghanistan and Iran, and the hanging of gays in Saudi Arabia.

    Currently, Muslim birth rates far outpace those of Christians, Jews, or other pacifist religions, and absolutely dwarf the birth rates of nihilists. The average white, likely nihilist, native woman in Europe has one child. The average woman in Yemen, oppressed and Muslim, has eight children. Who do you think will own this third millennium?

    So fear not, fool, your hated Christians will soon be gone, and replacing them will be a kind of hell you have never experienced.

      • dentedbluemercedes
      • April 26th, 2011

      You wrote:
      “Canada is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles…”

      And then we grew up.

      You wrote:
      “The Quran mandates the conversion or death of all infidels…”

      Like any faith and any scripture, there are many interpretations. I hate to break it to you, but Bin Laden’s interpretation is in the minority among Muslims. Loud and unhinged, but a minority.

      And even if it were not so, the solution to one form of extremism is not to grant another form of extremism the force of law.

        • Doc
        • April 26th, 2011

        “And then we grew up”. Ah. Right. And why exactly do you think that the principles that you espouse and/or that you maintain are ‘Canadian principles’ or whatever are more mature than the much-maligned Judeo-Christian principles?

        • Doc
        • April 26th, 2011

        You say that Bin Laden’s interpretation is unhinged; who are you to judge whether or not the interpretation of a follower of a faith not your own is hinged or un? Granted for the sake of argument that he’s in the minority (and, even if he is, there doesn’t seem to be a powerful Muslim majority interested in doing much about him and his ilk), so what? Since when does being in the minority make one wrong or unhinged? You’re very much in the minority when it comes to worldview: that in and of itself doesn’t make you unhinged, unimportant, or uninfluential.

        • mintgreybmw
        • April 26th, 2011

        “Minority of Muslims”? Sharia law is practiced to some extent as the official law of the land in almost every Islamic nation. Some nations entire codes and laws are taken from the Quran and Hadiths. See for yourself:

        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Countries_with_Sharia_rule.png

        A billion Muslims live under some form of Sharia. Only a minority have any form of women’s rights, and in only a small handful is homosexuality legal (gay marriage will NEVER happen in a Muslim nation). Female genital mutilation still occurs regularly in North Africa, and although not commanded by the Quran is being brought to Europe with mainly Muslim migrants. The penalty for homosexuality is DEATH in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, and Nigeria. Honor killings are another great import from the Eastern culture.

        Care to trade that for the Judeo-Christian English law we live under now?

        “And then we grew up.” No. We abandoned our responsibilities to our families, our Country, and to each other. We became a nation of takers instead of a nation of givers, always asking for more and offering less to society. We have become the New Decadent Rome, narcissist-nihilists, living out our lives in ignorant bliss, grasshoppers in a world of ants.

        I am not a follower of any world religion, but I am not blind to the obvious. You obviously are though.

    • dentedbluemercedes
    • April 26th, 2011

    @ Doc. You wrote:
    “And why exactly do you think that the principles that you espouse … are more mature”

    Because we’ve learned coexistence and respect for diversity. Most of us, anyway.

    And you wrote:
    “who are you to judge whether or not the interpretation of a follower of a faith not your own is hinged or un?”

    Openly calling for murder is unhinged. Demonization of entire populations is unhinged.

    • Doc
    • April 26th, 2011

    But why do you find coexistence and respect for diversity to be superior to strife and disrespect?

    Bin Laden and many others would say that he is not calling for murder, but rather killing that is part of war. Now if you want to say that all killing is murder whether in wartime or not, that’s one thing; then we can discuss pacifism. But if you will allow that some killing is just, then why do you consider Bin Laden’s calls for killing to be murder? What about his causus belli do you consider unjust?

    How do you differentiate the negative attitude you display towards the Christian Nationalists from ‘demonization of a population’?

      • dentedbluemercedes
      • April 26th, 2011

      You wrote:
      “How do you differentiate the negative attitude you display towards the Christian Nationalists from ‘demonization of a population’?”

      Because what I’ve outlined in the article above is based on what specific people have actually said and done, and not just prejudices toward or assumptions based on racial, gender, faith, sexual or other characteristics that are simply a part of who they are. Because I take pains to distinguish the difference between these particular people and Christians, the latter of whom can often be positive, affirming, respectful people who love their neighbours. Because I don’t call for anyone’s eradication, deportation, criminalization or silencing, but rather to counter deliberate fearmongering and distortion that specific people have used to further an agenda.

      And re: war, I’m not fond of any kind of killing, but can see justification if it becomes absolutely necessary for peace and survival. Belief systems, not so much.

        • Doc
        • April 27th, 2011

        ‘Peace and survival’, eh? Why do you hold to a belief system that values such? And for whom? Everyone? Does that mean you think that every nation should go to war when anyone’s peace and survival are threatened? Since you don’t think you should go to war for a belief system, and valuing peace and survival is, itself a belief system or part of one, what now?

        And, to the extent that you don’t favor physical action against Christian Nationalists, why not? They probably maintain a positive reproductive advantage over and against those who share your belief system; eventually they’ll outvote you. Unless, of course, you can convince many others to oppose them. But then you’ll need to have some principles to stand on to ground your belief system. Having chucked the J-C one, what now?

    • Paul
    • April 26th, 2011

    Marci McDonald, really? That left-wing hack has been disproved, and conclusively. I can’t say if your premise is right or wrong, but if you are using Marci McDonald’s as a source, you’re likely wrong. Here’s only one of many sources:
    http://ezralevant.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=Marci+McDonald&IncludeBlogs=1

      • dentedbluemercedes
      • April 27th, 2011

      McDonald is far from my only source. That said, what I see as disproven are a few small errors that are not central to her core narrative.

    • David Yates
    • April 27th, 2011

    I’ll begin by stating that I am a believing Christian and have been for my entire adult life (I’m now 45, so that adds up to roughly 28 years of faith — give or take a month or two).
    I feel compelled to respond to your very well-written article, because, as a committed Christian of nearly 30 years, during which I’ve attended two different Bible colleges and three different seminaries, I’ve pastored in three different churches, taught biblical theology in two different Bible colleges, lectured in numerous others, have attended various evangelical churches from B.C. to Quebec and have been an active member of several of them, am married to the daughter of missionaries who have worked in Europe and S. America and whose entire extended family (that is, about 80+ people), are all (save one or two cousins) very devout in the Christian faith, of which there are several professionals in various and diverse ministries (from church pastors to missionaries to medical and social aid workers), and I have never even heard of most of the names or organizations you’ve mentioned in your extensive article.
    All this is to say, I think you’ve really very little to worry about when it comes to this ostensibly burgeoning movement allegedly advocating for and campaigning toward this supposed Christian theocracy.
    Moreover, I used to be on the board of directors of Conservative MP Jason Kenney’s EDA, and am even now actively volunteering for Stephen Harper’s election campaign. (And I mean THE PM Stephen Harper, living as I do in his electoral riding of Calgary Southwest.)
    So, as ensconced as I am within evangelical Christianity, as well as being someone who is fairly active within the Conservative Party of Canada, I would think it more likely than not that I would have heard at least a smidgeon of all the things you rehearse above re: the alleged links between the Christian Nationalist movement and the Stephen Harper Conservatives, but I haven’t.
    All due respect, Ms. Allen (and I mean that sincerely), but I believe this to be much ado about very little, if not nothing at all.

    • Yves G
    • April 27th, 2011

    «SunTV had earned a reputation for being Canada’s “Fox News North” for about a year, before its news channel finally launched on April 18th, 2011. This was largely because the network had attempted to circumvent regular process in order to get automatic preferred carrier status upon launching, but ultimately lost that effort. »

    This makes absolutely no sense. Did the original Fox News attempt to to circumvent regular process in order to get automatic preferred carrier status upon launching ?

    In any case, it was called “Fox News North” before there was any controversy around it getting preferred carrier status.

      • dentedbluemercedes
      • April 27th, 2011

      Yes, you’re correct. This was a last-minute edit gone bad, and that wasn’t the causality. My apologies.

    • dentedbluemercedes
    • April 29th, 2011
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 876 other followers

%d bloggers like this: