Support NeoGAF

[CPS2]

Starting from the beginning, what's the first thing you find "unintelligent" and why?

The guy hasn't looked at how he got to any of his conclusions. He feels like he's obviously correct, anyone who agrees with him is also correct, and its all about how they can survive and increase in numbers.

 

[Stumpokapow]

They’ve got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is not anchored in anything

I mean, no one's idea of "good" is anchored in anything real. We all argue from first principles, whether the first principles are "follow the book" or the golden rule or the veil of ignorance or whatever. My first principle would be "all human beings deserve dignity and happiness". If I need to point to a document that says that because people don't find that believable, then I'd point to the UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 1 or the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Those are pretty good starting points for me. Everything else can flow from there.

You seem to be familiar with the author so maybe you could answer: is he above inventing a college professor at a cartoon perfect evil liberal university?

I doubt it's made up in any way. Most major US universities have a good deal of faculty tension over cultural issues, especially in Political Science and Economics and the ongoing debate about minority studies program scholarship. Lots of minority-viewpoint profs within their faculties feel compelled into silence. If a progressive somehow got hired by George Mason, they'd be awfully lonely and silent. Same is true in reverse for many schools. It's not hard to find examples of it; the UIUC professor "un-hiring" case recently is an example of a pretty credible fear for many profs. UCLA is currently going through an acrimonious and divided effort to adopt a diversity requirement for undergraduates and opposing profs have repeatedly claimed their argument is being mischaracterized or they're facing undue pressure to quiet down about it, for example. When I think about my own institution, I don't imagine any tenured prof would be able to get away with sparking a debate on basic dignity and respect for people and not be ostracized.

That being said, that the professor exists and feels he is being persecuted into silence doesn't mean he really is, but I think perception is enough because perception is what's governing peoples' choice to speak or not.

 

[Cipherr]

“‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ forced them to segment off a part of their lives in a way that was wrong. What they don’t realize today is that the very same criticism they had about ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ can be applied to what is happening now to Christians: you can do what you like in private, but don’t bring who you are into the public square, or you can be punished for it.”

Nonsense. You can be christian all you want, but discrimination isn't okay, I don't care what your holy book says. Once you start to impose on others you have stepped over the line. Not even religion can get you a pass for discrimination. Welcome to the civilized world.

 

[gcubed]

What a whacko. This is the intelligent right wing?

Christians should put their families on a “media fast,” he says. “Throw out the TV. Limit Netflix. You cannot let in contemporary stuff. It’s garbage. It’s a sewage pipe into your home. So many parents think they’re holding the line, but they let their kids have unfettered access to TV, the Internet, and smartphones. You can’t do that.

“That generation is superseded by Social Justice Warriors in their thirties who don’t believe that they should respect anybody who doesn’t respect them,” Kingsfield said. “Those people are going to be in power before long, and we may not be protected.”

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Who is this closeted professor and what hyper-liberal university does he work for where he lives in fear of being attacked if his religious beliefs were known? It sounds like he has a serious persecution complex. I attended 3 highly liberal west coast colleges and had plenty of religious professors who had no problem being openly so. This professor sounds more like a closet bigot than a closet Christian.

I believe he has educated Albert Einstein in the past.

 

[KHarvey16]

I mean, no one's idea of "good" is anchored in anything real. We all argue from first principles, whether the first principles are "follow the book" or the golden rule or the veil of ignorance or whatever. My first principle would be "all human beings deserve dignity and happiness". If I need to point to a document that says that because people don't find that believable, then I'd point to the UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 1 or the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Those are pretty good starting points for me. Everything else can flow from there.

They are obligated to repeat this old chestnut about not having any basis for morality, otherwise even they recognize the authority they claim to hold over truth and righteousness vanishes. It wasn't reasoned out that this was the case, it was the defensive consequence of others attempting to reason with them.

 

[Christine]

You seem to be familiar with the author so maybe you could answer: is he above inventing a college professor at a cartoon perfect evil liberal university?

I don't think it's his invention, no. Someone sent that to him.

 

[Link]

What a whacko. This is the intelligent right wing?

Christians should put their families on a “media fast,” he says. “Throw out the TV. Limit Netflix. You cannot let in contemporary stuff. It’s garbage. It’s a sewage pipe into your home. So many parents think they’re holding the line, but they let their kids have unfettered access to TV, the Internet, and smartphones. You can’t do that.

Can't let that "liberal media" infect their pure minds.

If you worry that any outside social interaction is going to ruin your children, maybe you're the problem.

 

[aeolist]

i went to a christian summer camp in southern alabama for years as a kid. one year they had a guest speaker named kent hovind (notorious extreme fundamentalist, currently serving a 10 year sentence in federal prison for tax evasion among other things).

i remember he spoke to my cabin one evening after the daily service. when he talked to the entire camp he was a pretty good speaker (relatively) and had some generalized talking points about young earth creationism and how evolution is bullshit, but in a smaller setting he kind of went off the rails. he rambled for about an hour about how the government was stockpiling military equipment in florida in preparation for a violent crackdown on christianity, how society would collapse after god judged the US and his doomsday prepping, and how all new cars were being built with remote shut-off switches in them so that the cops could stop everyone on a road when they wanted to catch someone (he was making unspecified modifications to his cars to avoid this).

this is how fundies see the world. their religion was violently oppressed for hundreds of years by rome at its inception, then protestantism was engaged in a bloody conflict with the catholic church after the reformation, and the holy book describes the end of the world as beginning with the same kind of persecution of the faithful.

the supposed degradation of human society and the inevitability of the biblical apocalypse are the essential core of fundamentalist christian protestantism. no matter how much cultural and political power they accrue they will always see themselves as the persecuted minority, under attack in every direction by the devil's dupes.

 

[ReAxion]

Starting from the beginning, what's the first thing you find "unintelligent" and why?

“Alasdair Macintyre is right,” he said. “It’s like a nuclear bomb went off, but in slow motion.” What he meant by this is that our culture has lost the ability to reason together, because too many of us want and believe radically incompatible things.

He speaks as if he's authoritatively capable of defining what "our culture" is, and as if he can diagnose it.

Stealing KHarvey's words here:
This is a naive and ignorant view of both the past and the present.

 

[Syriel]

I'm not quite sure I agree. We sort of agree, but I'd say that we would like to protect all religious freedom of all kinds -- it just sometimes runs in to other values and clashes with them such that we have to make a choice.

I would love to allow everyone complete religious freedom, but sometimes that value clashes with something else I hold dear, such as the ability of every person in our society to live a life free of discrimination and prejudice.

Another example: I'd love to allow everyone complete freedom of speech, but sometimes people say things like "kill that person, over there, kill him," and my desire to allow complete freedom of speech conflicts with my desire to avoid murder. This is a really common problem in social governance, to me; two good things clash with each other, and we need to make nuanced choices.

Starting from the beginning, what's the first thing you find "unintelligent" and why?

Opiate has it correct. The government generally stays out of religion except when said religion clashes with secular values.

The RFA as written and passed in Indiana basically elevates religious law above secular law (which is ironic as there are passages in the Bible which basically state that one should follow the law of the land). Indiana's RFA enshrines the right for religions to implement what the Republican Right has derisively called Sharia law. They don't want Muslims to do it, but they want Christians to do it.

Many make examples to racism as for why Indiana's RFA is bad law, but that naturally puts people on the defensive. A much better example (and one that focuses on religious belief) happened nearly a decade ago in Minneapolis.

Muslim cab drivers were refusing to accept passengers carrying alcohol or those with animals as it was deemed against their religion.

This went on for a few years until the airport commission put a stop to it in 2007.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/17/us-muslims-taxis-idUSN1633289220070417

Muslim cab drivers at Minnesota's biggest airport will face new penalties including a two-year revocation of their taxi permits if they refuse to give rides to travelers carrying liquor or accompanied by dogs, the board overseeing operations ruled Monday.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission, responding to complaints about the liquor issue, voted unanimously to impose the new penalties beginning in May.

A large number of taxi drivers in the area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslim Somali immigrants. Many say they feel the faith's ban on alcohol consumption includes transporting anyone carrying it.

Some also have refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.

A business that is there to serve the public is supposed to serve the public equally. If a business owner wants to discriminate against those of other belief systems, that shouldn't fly in America.

It shouldn't matter if the person discriminating is a Muslim cab driver refusing service to a Christian carrying a bottle of wine or a Christian pizza maker refusing service to a gay man who is throwing a party.

If something is clearly religious in nature (Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, etc.) then yes, exceptions should be made as that is something specifically designed for religious expression. Someone going there should be expected to put the religion's beliefs above their own. But out in the public sphere at large? Nope.

This is the counter point that the article in the OP (and pretty much everyone who tries to defend Indiana's RFA completely fails to address).

 

[gutter_trash]

I read post-Indiana Jones, then started reading and went what what?

America is a Right wing nation and probably one of the most Conservative developed countries of the Western world.

Yeah, you have blue states, the North-East and stuff but overall, it is still a very Right Wing country.

And you left is not even on the left, they are more like Right of Center.


that said, there has been big strides when it comes to Same Sex equality and stuff, culturally that is being accepted into most of the mainstream. It's just you still got pocket of mass conservatism that still fights it

 

[AstroLad]

Agree with some of the comments above about how unfair it is that you can't be a bigot in public anymore without being criticized. Constitution much?

 

[Divvy]

I mean, when you say "Santorum gets it", you kind of invalidate your whole argument

 

[Somnid]

I gave up about halfway through. I think it is a problem people are being pushed under in the new PC culture, it's basically imposed a sort of self-censorship. Dissenting views should be okay but they aren't, so I agree on that point. I also agree that academia has a big problem with forcing people to think in certain ways. Not that I disagree with all of them but it's problem that doesn't get many callouts (though I'm not sure the particulars I disagree with are the same). Academia has it's own ideology as do things like business that get drive the narrative in those fields for good and bad.

Otherwise I think while I think it's fine people want to believe in holistic identity ("I'm a Christian baker, I'm a Jewish teacher"), it's never been realistic. Western religion needs to adapt to that but feel free to do what you need to in your own space, even if I disagree with it. Others shouldn't prosecute you for it the same way you shouldn't persecute them for what they do in private. Surely this is a good compromise.

 

[Armaros]

Agree with some of the comments above about how unfair it is that you can't be a bigot in public anymore without being criticized. Constitution much?

"It's not bigotry, it's my sincerely held religous belief that X minority is a lesser group Of humans that doesn't deserve the same rights and protections as me"

Is what they mean

 

[Cipherr]

Opiate has it correct. The government generally stays out of religion except when said religion clashes with secular values.

The RFA as written and passed in Indiana basically elevates religious law above secular law (which is ironic as there are passages in the Bible which basically state that one should follow the law of the land). Indiana's RFA enshrines the right for religions to implement what the Republican Right has derisively called Sharia law. They don't want Muslims to do it, but they want Christians to do it.

Many make examples to racism as for why Indiana's RFA is bad law, but that naturally puts people on the defensive. A much better example (and one that focuses on religious belief) happened nearly a decade ago in Minneapolis.

Muslim cab drivers were refusing to accept passengers carrying alcohol or those with animals as it was deemed against their religion.

This went on for a few years until the airport commission put a stop to it in 2007.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/17/us-muslims-taxis-idUSN1633289220070417



A business that is there to serve the public is supposed to serve the public equally. If a business owner wants to discriminate against those of other belief systems, that shouldn't fly in America.

It shouldn't matter if the person discriminating is a Muslim cab driver refusing service to a Christian carrying a bottle of wine or a Christian pizza maker refusing service to a gay man who is throwing a party.

If something is clearly religious in nature (Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, etc.) then yes, exceptions should be made as that is something specifically designed for religious expression. Someone going there should be expected to put the religion's beliefs above their own. But out in the public sphere at large? Nope.

This is the counter point that the article in the OP (and pretty much everyone who tries to defend Indiana's RFA completely fails to address).

That cab drivers link is interesting. Didn't know about that. Really good post.

 

[Fusebox]

I suppose if the two biggest opponents to your religious utopia are same-sex and interfaith marriages then it could seem like the western world is out to get you. On the other hand, if those are the core tenets of your personal faith then you've got bigger issues than me thinking you're a dickbag.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

People have been killed and in some cases are still being killed for the faith they follow and you think the sky is falling for American Christians because you're being expected not to be giant dicks to gay people?

 

[Armaros]

People have been killed and in some cases are still being killed for the faith they follow and you think the sky is falling for American Christians because you're being expected not to be giant dicks to gay people?

The same calls occurred after civil rights, desegregation and interracial marriage.

Funny that

 

[Guileless]

He speaks as if he's authoritatively capable of defining what "our culture" is, and as if he can diagnose it.

Stealing KHarvey's words here:
This is a naive and ignorant view of both the past and the present.

Ok, this is a good place to start identified by you and KHarvey. It is a discrete enough concept to discuss in a forum, but it is also one of the central themes to the argument.

“The sad thing,” he said, “is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don’t hold."

This is the quote that KHarvey said was naive and ignorant. So, let's break it down. You guys are arguing that it is naive and ignorant to believe that there was an "old way aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality." So, my responsive question to you is, if there were no old ways of "aspiring to truth", etc., what were the old ways of learning and philosophy about if not "aspiring to truth?" e.g., ancient Greek (pre-Christian) philosophy. Is it naive to think that the ancient Greeks aspired to knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality? If so, what were they doing it for?

 

[KHarvey16]

Ok, this is a good place to start identified by you and KHarvey. It is a discrete enough concept to discuss in a forum, but it is also one of the central themes to the argument.



This is the quote that KHarvey said was naive and ignorant. So, let's break it down. You guys are arguing that it is naive and ignorant to believe that there was an "old way aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality." So, my responsive question to you is, if there were no old ways of "aspiring to truth", etc., what were the old ways of learning and philosophy about if not "aspiring to truth?" e.g., ancient Greek (pre-Christian) philosophy. Is it naive to think that the ancient Greeks aspired to knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality? If so, what were they doing it for?

It's naive and ignorant not because it identifies that there were old ways, but because it (in context with the rest of the article) is clearly meant to imply those old ways are the only valid ways.

 

[Guileless]

Opiate has it correct. The government generally stays out of religion except when said religion clashes with secular values.

If you're talking about governments in the United States, of course. I agree with this statement 100%. So would Dreher.

The RFA as written and passed in Indiana basically elevates religious law above secular law (which is ironic as there are passages in the Bible which basically state that one should follow the law of the land).

This is an incorrect statement of fact. The law allows a person a hearing to assert his or her First Amendment principles as to the 'free exercise' of religion with a balancing test to decide if the governmental infringement on free exercise is warranted. If the State passes the test, it wins. Secular law >>>> religious law.

 

[jblank83]

I spent a long time on the phone last night with a law professor at one of the country’s elite law schools. This professor is a practicing Christian, deeply closeted in the workplace; he is convinced that if his colleagues in academia knew of his faith, they would make it very hard for him.

What crap. All protestations of exclusive group affiliations are looked down on in professional (including university) settings because it is not conducive to a productive environment. The workplace is for work, not converting people to your ideologies, except in very specific intellectual discourse (i.e. this process of science research or that process of educational theory). Even so, a majority of our nation identifies as Christian and truly good hearted intentions are always looked upon kindly, regardless of group identifications.

Thus, I've met plenty of avowed Christians in academia, in professional settings, in medical settings. No one said anything about it professionally, though atheists sometimes objected on an ideological interpersonal level, and if anything it was encouraged. What's not looked on kindly is evangelizing, criticizing, or politicizing, whether it's religion or politics. Hence, keep your bullshit to yourself.

“‘Christians: you can do what you like in private, but don’t bring who you are into the public square, or you can be punished for it.”

What garbage.

 

[gcubed]

what i don't understand is the huge uproar from the "misunderstanding" crowd.

If you say the RFA isn't about discrimination, and the "fix" is to say that the RFA doesn't allow you to discriminate. Then, why are we still talking?

 

[Armaros]

what i don't understand is the huge uproar from the "misunderstanding" crowd.

If you say the RFA isn't about discrimination, and the "fix" is to say that the RFA doesn't allow you to discriminate. Then, why are we still talking?

Because the Christian organizations that sponsored the bill are outraged that they made any concessions.

 

[whipihguh]

Christians should put their families on a “media fast,” he says. “Throw out the TV. Limit Netflix. You cannot let in contemporary stuff. It’s garbage. It’s a sewage pipe into your home. So many parents think they’re holding the line, but they let their kids have unfettered access to TV, the Internet, and smartphones. You can’t do that.

If this is one of his best solutions for the problem he sees, he's already failed miserably. Maybe 10-15 years ago this idea would be feasible, but the Internet and all the communication and media consumption it has provided has become such an integral part of society that trying to restrict it any way to the newer generations will only greatly hinder them and enclose them off from the rest of society, and that's at best. More likely, such strict restrictions will only lead to resentment and backlash, and likely backfire in a spectacular fashion once said restrictions are released.

I still don't understand this worry that the fact that people are worried about religious persecution. Do these people realize that like 90% of the United States is Christian? Do they understand that because people don't like the fact that a business discriminates against LGBT people or couples, the reasoning isn't the religion but the discrimination itself? Just from a statistical standpoint, most of the people who were outraged by those comments from Memories Pizza were probably Christians themselves.

I don't recall Jesus ever telling his followers to treat those of differing sexuality unfairly compared they would anyone else. You could make an argument that Christian churches can't marry those of the same-sex, but the Bible didn't have many verses on baking cakes or catering services as far I remember.

The problem isn't that you're Christian, or Jewish, or whatever. The problem is that you're an asshole. Believe whatever you want, but that doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate in a place of business.

 

[ReAxion]

Ok, this is a good place to start identified by you and KHarvey. It is a discrete enough concept to discuss in a forum, but it is also one of the central themes to the argument.



This is the quote that KHarvey said was naive and ignorant. So, let's break it down. You guys are arguing that it is naive and ignorant to believe that there was an "old way aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality." So, my responsive question to you is, if there were no old ways of "aspiring to truth", etc., what were the old ways of learning and philosophy about if not "aspiring to truth?" e.g., ancient Greek (pre-Christian) philosophy. Is it naive to think that the ancient Greeks aspired to knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality? If so, what were they doing it for?

I just wanted to use KHarvey's sentence because it also accurately describes how off base he is in the example I used.

Overall, it's like he sees marginalization, doesn't want to admit it's real, but is afraid it's going to happen to him.

 

[Link]

“‘Christians: you can do what you like in private, but don’t bring who you are into the public square, or you can be punished for it.”

Replace "Christians" with "gays" and it's totally cool though, right?

 

[Banana Aeon]

“Intermarriage is death,” Kingsfield said. “Not something like Catholic-Orthodox, but Christian-Jew, or high church-low church. I just don’t think Christians are focused on that, but the Orthodox Jews get it. They know how much this matters in creating a culture in which transmitting the faith happens. For us Christians, this is going to mean matchmaking and youth camps and other things like that. It probably means embracing a higher fertility rate, and celebrating bigger families.”

The fuck does this even mean? It's like he lost track of the lack of a point that he had, and created some bullshit, fear-mongering nonsense, that falls apart the second you apply logic to that thought.

 

[SmackDaddy]

This guy wants to kill "real christianity." The kind that teaches love, respect, and peace

 

[Somnid]

Replace "Christians" with "gays" and it's totally cool though, right?

Seriously. The tragic irony is that they are afraid that people will deny them dignity for something they feel is part of their identity but if someone who feels homosexuality is part of their identity desires the same, they seek to use the legal system to make sure they will always have the ability to send them away. And they have majority advantage to boot.

I could actually agree if it wasn't so transparently hypocritical.

 

[Syriel]

If you're talking about governments in the United States, of course. I agree with this statement 100%. So would Dreher.



This is an incorrect statement of fact. The law allows a person a hearing to assert his or her First Amendment principles as to the 'free exercise' of religion with a balancing test to decide if the governmental infringement on free exercise is warranted. If the State passes the test, it wins. Secular law >>>> religious law.

Anti-discrimination laws already allow for due process. It's not like an accusation results in instant punishment from the courts. There are hearings, evidence, etc.

Moving the goalposts to put the onus on the one being discriminated against puts an undue burden on those suffering from discrimination.

The issue with the cab drivers went on for FIVE YEARS before it was finally resolved. And that was under standard anti-discrimination laws. Under Indiana's RFA, it would have likely stretched out much longer.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

This guy wants to kill "real christianity." The kind that teaches love, respect, and peace

Nobody ever wants to stand on a hill over the parts of the bible that tell you to like people.

 

[Oppo]

have to admit, "Santorum gets it" instantly stopped me from wanting to read another word.

 

[LegendofJoe]

“That generation is superseded by Social Justice Warriors in their thirties who don’t believe that they should respect anybody who doesn’t respect them,” Kingsfield said. “Those people are going to be in power before long, and we may not be protected.”

I legitimately laughed at this part. How can this be considered a bad thing? Oh, you're a non-Christian homosexual and therefore beneath me. But you should still respect me. Okay man good luck with that....

 

[zashga]

I will never understand why so many Christians view intolerance towards gay people as central to their religious identity. Christ certainly didn't have much to say on the topic. Why dredge up this one thing from Leviticus and none of the other ancient legalistic stuff that Christianity purports to supersede? Why is this the fight that defines their faith? If anything is hurting Christianity today, it's this stubborn insistence that their faith be defined by exclusion and intolerance.

 

[Yekshemesh]

They’ve got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is not anchored in anything. They’ve got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the answers, and believe that they are good.”

This is hilarious. Surely he's talking about Christian Conservatives here right? And who is "they"?

 

[Tragicomedy]

This man is literally insane. Literally.

 

[Kusagari]

I like how it started off pretty typical before devolving into insane ramblings.

 

[jtb]

jesus, this was fucking unreadable. and yet I read it anyways. that persecution complex.

 

[Christine]

I still don't understand this worry that the fact that people are worried about religious persecution. Do these people realize that like 90% of the United States is Christian? Do they understand that because people don't like the fact that a business discriminates against LGBT people or couples, the reasoning isn't the religion but the discrimination itself? Just from a statistical standpoint, most of the people who were outraged by those comments from Memories Pizza were probably Christians themselves.

That's what's meant by "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism", that real Christians are a persecuted religious minority in a country where the majority are Christian only in name.

 

[Armaros]

That's what's meant by "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism", that real Christians are a persecuted religious minority in a country where the majority are Christian only in name.

The full blown no Scotsman while avoiding saying what exactly is a 'real Christian' is.

 

[Guileless]

Anti-discrimination laws already allow for due process. It's not like an accusation results in instant punishment from the courts. There are hearings, evidence, etc.

Of course. The Native American in Employment Division v. Smith who wanted to take sacramental peyote got to argue his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. After he lost, the Democratic House passed the federal RFRA 435-0, the Democratic Senate passed it 97-3, and Pres. Clinton signed it. They were all elevating Native American sacramental peyote over secular law, right?

 

[crooked spin]

This letter is so ridiculous that I am almost willing to believe that a (so-called) social justice warrior wrote it as Swiftian satire. I mean... this is just too on the nose:

“That generation is superseded by Social Justice Warriors in their thirties who don’t believe that they should respect anybody who doesn’t respect them,”

 

[whipihguh]

That's what's meant by "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism", that real Christians are a persecuted religious minority in a country where the majority are Christian only in name.

Oh dear, that's what he meant? If your persecution complex is so extreme that you need to even cut off the majority of other Christians in the country...

Wow, I don't even know what to say.

 

[Armaros]

Oh dear, that's what he meant? If your persecution complex is so extreme that you need to even cut off the majority of other Christians in the country...

Wow, I don't even know what to say.

The Christians that dont support their positions aren't real Christians of course /s

 

[Link]

The Christians that dont support their positions aren't real Christians of course /s

CINOS?

 

[Christine]

The full blown no Scotsman while avoiding saying what exactly is a 'real Christian' is.

Not exactly. I don't know anything about this professor, but Rod uses the phrase too and he has some pretty definite ideas on the topic that he's not shy about sharing. He's pretty adamant about God's model for the family, if you don't perceive deviations from it as unwanted he thinks you're probably not "Christian", at least not in sense of belonging to the group that he thinks of as persecuted.

 

[Aaron Strife]

“That generation is superseded by Social Justice Warriors in their thirties who don’t believe that they should respect anybody who doesn’t respect them,” Kingsfield said. “Those people are going to be in power before long, and we may not be protected.”

Wait

So this is about

ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM?