"First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

[Johan]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

But you made the point not him. He was making a sick case for tyranny.

Did I ?

In some cases, tyranny is better than democracy.
In most mulims countries the tyrants are the only thing that stop radical islam to take over the country...

Is telling that secular tyranny is better than radical islamic government making sick case for tyranny ?
Then I guess I can tell that, when you say...

The tyrants that rule in Muslim countries have to resort to mass killings of the citizens to retain that power. Hardly a lesser of anything. I'd rather take my chances under Islamic law.

...you're making a sick case for sharia law, don't you ?

 

[Jack Davenport]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

I responded to a false equivalency. You are the one making the case, not I. Sharia law is on the face of it, a tyrannical system under which to live.. Mostly due to the punishment handed down to those that defy it. I would argue that while it is oppression, those that live under that system have a choice in whether they obey it. To obey Sharia law would allow you to have less of a chance of being killed than by some tyrant who decides he will kill people to spark fear in the people and insure their allegiance.

 

[Johan]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

I responded to a false equivalency. You are the one making the case, not I. Sharia law is on the face of it, a tyrannical system under which to live.. Mostly due to the punishment handed down to those that defy it. I would argue that while it is oppression, those that live under that system have a choice in whether they obey it. To obey Sharia law would allow you to have less of a chance of being killed than by some tyrant who decides he will kill people to spark fear in the people and insure their allegiance.

What about the christian minorities in these countries ?
If you were a christian, living in Iraq, would you rather live under Sharia Law, hiding your christian faith, living in the constant fear of being recognised as a christian and killed for not being a muslim ? Would you embrace Islam over christianity, just to have the right to stay alive ? Or would you prefer to live under a tyrannical secular government under which wether you're christian, jew, buddhist, muslim or whatever doesn't matter and under which nothing will happen to you as long as you don't defy the government ?

 

[Jack Davenport]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

What about the christian minorities in these countries ?
If you were a christian, living in Iraq, would you rather live under Sharia Law, hiding your christian faith, living in the constant fear of being recognised as a christian and killed for not being a muslim ? Would you embrace Islam over christianity, just to have the right to stay alive ? Or would you prefer to live under a tyrannical secular government under which wether you're christian, jew, buddhist, muslim or whatever doesn't matter and under which nothing will happen to you as long as you don't defy the government ?

China and the former Soviet Union are/were atheist States. Tyranny to the max. Christianity or any other religion can result in a death sentence. As I said you are sugar coating tyranny. Had the Nazis prevailed in WW II your view of such a system would not be so simplistic.

 

[Johan]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

I spoke about a SECULAR government, not an ATHEIST government. You know the difference between secularism and atheism, don't you ?

 

[Jack Davenport]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

I spoke about a SECULAR government, not an ATHEIST government. You know the difference between secularism and atheism, don't you ?

Yeah. You said tyranny and did not differentiate between secular and atheist. If you want to form your argument, you need to decide which points you are arguing and not move the goal posts when you are getting your ass kicked.

 

[Johan]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism", says christian ultra-conservative radio host

Yeah. You said tyranny and did not differentiate between secular and atheist. If you want to form your argument, you need to decide which points you are arguing and not move the goal posts when you are getting your ass kicked.

I said aa sécularisation tyranny, like mubarrak, is better than a theocratic elected goverment, like the muslim brotherhood

 

[georges]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism"

If you feel you can reprimand Johan for not knowing "jackshit", those who support Obama, or those younger than you for being uniformed due to their age, than I think it's more than fair that you receive a sample of what you serve others. As I've said before, age doesn't necessarily define wisdom, so relying on that excuse that "I'm older, therefore I know more/better" doesn't fly with me or others here. I don't like a nanny state either, but I don't believe that Christianity plays any part in preventing it or stopping it, that's silly.

I never claimed that any or all Europeans are uninformed about what happens in America, that would be foolish. I'm saying that in broadcasting events that take place here overseas, there is always going to be some skewing of records or events, the same as there is here. But like here, if you're inclined to disregard any particular viewpoint, opinion, or source of information, you can't claim to be getting the full story and be entirely informed.

Listen, a lot of people went oversensitive when Obama got flak and was criticized for very valid reasons.The socialists back ups and anyone supporting their leftist friends without any knowledge of what kind of danger socialism represents are not really well placed to tell me what should I think or what I shouldn't. An also people who haven't lived under a socialist government, who are not having a job and who aren't paying taxes don't understand what the real life means. I respect always older people and there are some good younger people but they are rare. If you hate a nanny state, then you rely on your own like a grown up man and you won't ask for not a damn thing or any kind of help. This is just easy as it gets.In the movie Cogan, there are some lines I can't stop to quote but which describe America very very well:
"Barack Obama (on TV): ...to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one...

Driver: You hear that line? Line's for you.

Jackie Cogan: Don't make me laugh. One people. It's a myth created by Thomas Jefferson.

Driver: Oh, so now you're going to have a go at Jefferson, huh?

Jackie Cogan: My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and fucked his slave girl. This guy wants to tell me we're living in a community? Don't make me laugh. I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now fuckin' pay me. "

 

[ApolloBalboa]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism"

Listen, a lot of people went oversensitive when Obama got flak and was criticized for very valid reasons.The socialists back ups and anyone supporting their leftist friends without any knowledge of what kind of danger socialism represents are not really well placed to tell me what should I think or what I shouldn't. An also people who haven't lived under a socialist government, who are not having a job and who aren't paying taxes don't understand what the real life means. I respect always older people and there are some good younger people but they are rare. If you hate a nanny state, then you rely on your own like a grown up man and you won't ask for not a damn thing or any kind of help. This is just easy as it gets.In the movie Cogan, there are some lines I can't stop to quote but which describe America very very well:
"Barack Obama (on TV): ...to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one...

Driver: You hear that line? Line's for you.

Jackie Cogan: Don't make me laugh. One people. It's a myth created by Thomas Jefferson.

Driver: Oh, so now you're going to have a go at Jefferson, huh?

Jackie Cogan: My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and fucked his slave girl. This guy wants to tell me we're living in a community? Don't make me laugh. I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now fuckin' pay me. "

I'm not about to get on any kind of soapbox and debate this at length, but socialism isn't the end of the world as many people believe, and I don't consider it prudent for any foreign national, studied or otherwise, to pretend they know how my country should be run correctly, the same as you say anyone who's a socialist shouldn't be telling you what to think. A socialist government is not necessarily a nanny state, but that doesn't mean that it can't become one. Hating a nanny state is hating a society that grossly oversteps the boundaries of a reasonable government, and while your definition of that may be a socialist one, my definition is different; my definition is one that would have my mom give up diet sodas or she can't go see the doctor, one that would have my mom sleep from 12 to 8 everyday or she loses her Medicaid.

Asking for help doesn't make you any less of a person, but taking advantage of that assistance does, and while there may be people who do that in any case, socialist or otherwise, you're never to paint all people with the same brush. Through your "immoral" socialism, my mom can afford healthcare, despite being sick and unemployed through no fault of her own. However, just because she has this doesn't mean that she wants to simply lay back and take advantage of government assistance, she wants to get better and get back to working, and there are many other people who are the same. Whatever conceptions you have of people being sponges and ruining the system for everyone else may be fair based on your experiences, but I'll be damned if you lump my mom or anyone else in that group unfairly, without knowing them, what their struggles are, or what their circumstances may be, especially from a country across the goddamned ocean.

For you, or those who felt that this was tl;dr: you're entitled to your opinion, but a polite "fuck you" if you think you're in any way able to say that a system that allows someone I know and love dearly to be able to live day to day is an abomination. If that's how you feel, than come up with something better rather than just complain and bitch about the current situation.

 

[georges]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism"

I'm not about to get on any kind of soapbox and debate this at length, but socialism isn't the end of the world as many people believe, and I don't consider it prudent for any foreign national, studied or otherwise, to pretend they know how my country should be run correctly, the same as you say anyone who's a socialist shouldn't be telling you what to think. A socialist government is not necessarily a nanny state, but that doesn't mean that it can't become one. Hating a nanny state is hating a society that grossly oversteps the boundaries of a reasonable government, and while your definition of that may be a socialist one, my definition is different; my definition is one that would have my mom give up diet sodas or she can't go see the doctor, one that would have my mom sleep from 12 to 8 everyday or she loses her Medicaid.

Asking for help doesn't make you any less of a person, but taking advantage of that assistance does, and while there may be people who do that in any case, socialist or otherwise, you're never to paint all people with the same brush. Through your "immoral" socialism, my mom can afford healthcare, despite being sick and unemployed through no fault of her own. However, just because she has this doesn't mean that she wants to simply lay back and take advantage of government assistance, she wants to get better and get back to working, and there are many other people who are the same. Whatever conceptions you have of people being sponges and ruining the system for everyone else may be fair based on your experiences, but I'll be damned if you lump my mom or anyone else in that group unfairly, without knowing them, what their struggles are, or what their circumstances may be, especially from a country across the goddamned ocean.

For you, or those who felt that this was tl;dr: you're entitled to your opinion, but a polite "fuck you" if you think you're in any way able to say that a system that allows someone I know and love dearly to be able to live day to day is an abomination. If that's how you feel, than come up with something better rather than just complain and bitch about the current situation.

We will never agree but so be it. I hope all all these socialists systems that are known for giving everything to those who never bust their asses off and who just leech off healthcare, free social security, social housings and food coupons will cease to exist permanently. See what happened to Sweden, France, Netherlands and other countries where some people from the third world countries just went there to take advantage of the social system. Easy to live from other people's money and not to move a fucking finger. Socialism is a plague that bring nothings positive at all, socialism is the equal distribution of misery. Are people of the former USSR republics happier without socialism? Certainly. Same with Switzerland. You want something pay for it, hardworking people are fed up to pay for those who never work and who live from their revenues. Looking at the fiasco that is Obamacare, it is better to have your own private insurance if you are working and are able to pay for it of course. Count how many millions of unemployed or unwilling to work dunces people who work have to assist by paying huge taxes from their revenues? Far too many, but no for you, the hardworking person has an obligation to pay for the parasite. Remember none owes you a damn dollar. The society is not the red cross nor the charity hospital. Getting a job is the only way of not being assisted and be self reliant. But not apparently, you don't like to be self reliant, you think that things are due to you. unbelievable

 

[ApolloBalboa]

Re: "First Amendment only applies to christianism"

We will never agree but so be it. I hope all all these socialists systems that are known for giving everything to those who never bust their asses off and who just leech off healthcare, free social security, social housings and food coupons will cease to exist permanently. See what happened to Sweden, France, Netherlands and other countries where some people from the third world countries just went there to take advantage of the social system. Easy to live from other people's money and not to move a fucking finger. Socialism is a plague that bring nothings positive at all, socialism is the equal distribution of misery. Are people of the former USSR republics happier without socialism? Certainly. Same with Switzerland. You want something pay for it, hardworking people are fed up to pay for those who never work and who live from their revenues. Looking at the fiasco that is Obamacare, it is better to have your own private insurance if you are working and are able to pay for it of course. Count how many millions of unemployed or unwilling to work dunces people who work have to assist by paying huge taxes from their revenues? Far too many, but no for you, the hardworking person has an obligation to pay for the parasite. Remember none owes you a damn dollar. The society is not the red cross nor the charity hospital. Getting a job is the only way of not being assisted and be self reliant. But not apparently, you don't like to be self reliant, you think that things are due to you. unbelievable

No, we won't ever agree, and I'm fine with that. I'm amused that you equate socialism with a harbinger of the end, and even more so that you criticize and depreciate a system that may be taken advantage of (I'm meeting you halfway here), but don't acknowledge that it helps out those who can't help themselves, some for legitimate reasons, and do nothing to offer up a substitute. You're utterly content to squash any idea or opinion that you don't agree with, and offer nothing of worth in return (and no, your bourgeois opinion doesn't count). To me, the ability to go see a doctor if you're sick or need medical attention is a guaranteed right, not only as a citizen of whatever country you're in, but as a person who cares about others as well. I'm sorry that the derelicts in Europe are eating up your tax dollars, but I'm not inclined to regard anyone taking advantage of the opportunity of available health care a leech, a parasite, a freeloader, etc. unless I see otherwise that they could've helped themselves. Apparently your view is much more myopic and and misanthropic than mine, but hey, you're French, that's how you guys roll.

Lastly, I never said anything about not being self-reliant, but you felt the need to try and make this personal by saying I had. I'm not going to recite any and every detail to prove to you that you're wrong, but needless to say you couldn't be any further from the truth. If taking shots at me is the only way you can give any kind of depth or proof to your "argument", than you're even more foolish than I thought.