Ideas and Words Have Consequences

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

WeinsteinRant

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts takes a look at the prompt denial by some atheists of hatred of Christians as possibly being a factor in the murderer at Umpqua College singling out Christians:

 

 

So after over a decade of the radical anti-religious New Atheists spouting rhetoric against religion that would make a party in the 1930s Reichstag look Kosher by comparison, atheists are dealing with the ugly notion that evidence suggests the killer of nine people at Umpqua College purposefully targeted Christians.  Of course for most atheists, like most liberals and secularists, Christianity is the prime enemy.  So most contempt, disgust, hatred, spite, demagoguery and lies are aimed at Christians and Christianity.  And of course we know that such rhetoric is always behind things like racist hate crimes, and anti-gay hate crimes, and anti-Muslim hate crimes.  

But as Western Liberalism tends to do, once again we have a case where the zealousness of its righteous crusaders turns on itself and seems to expose the movement’s hypocrisy and agendas.  So Lauren Nelson, penning for the always ironically titled Friendly Atheist, steps in to say ‘not so fast, it may not have anything to do with it after all!’  
That, of course, is a favorite tactic of the leftist propaganda machine.  If a person kills blacks or gays or another minority group adopted by the Left, then hatred is the only motive.  The only focus.  If someone breaks from that, or a member of the approved minority community commits the crime, or a victim is from a non-accepted group, then it’s all about anything but the hatred.  Once again, reminding us that we are dealing with a movement that hates us; one that likely doesn’t care for the various groups it claims to support, but one that certainly hates certain groups – like Christians.  

Go here to read the rest.  The internet is a wonderful device for anonymous people to continually pour vials of rage over those they loathe. In an age when so many people spend a large part of their lives on the net, the consequences of such activity cannot be simply ignored when someone decides to act on the hatred roused.   Does this mean that every atheist is responsible for the actions of this gunman?  Of course not.  But it is simply disingenuous to pretend that a very well organized campaign of mockery and vilification of Christians that is ongoing on the net played no likely role in the murderer’s rage against Christians.

More to explorer

CNN-Vanity Cable News Network

Rather like the Vanity publishing houses that publish, for a fee, the works of authors that legitimate presses will not touch, CNN

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint Teresa of Avila

There’s a time for penance, and there’s a time for partridge. Saint Teresa of Avila   The life of St. Teresa, written

PopeWatch: The Problem

Sandro Magister publishes a missionary priest who explains what has gone wrong in the missions:   Fr. Martín Lasarte Topolanski, the author

41 Comments

  1. By definition Christians cannot be victims, white people cannot be victims, police cannot be victims. According to the prevailing model, Christians and white people have the power, and the powerful cannot be victims. Only members of approved victim classes can be victims. Possession of victim status is extremely important in our culture, something to be fought for and protected at all cost. Victim status is so powerful, homosexuals seized it and through careful manipulation of whatever faculty recognizes rainbow symbols — the Bear hesitates to use the word “intellect” — pushed through gay marriage practically overnight. The “powerful” were powerless to stop them. It was a rollover, not even a speed bump. That’s the power of victim status, and why we can’t have it. (Bears possibly, but there are so few talking bears to carry the message!)

  2. “(Bears possibly, but there are so few talking bears to carry the message!)”

    And so many of them cannot speak because their mouths are stuffed with honey, fish, picnic lunches, etc. Face it, you are a rarity my bruin friend.

  3. What will become of these atheists when Patriots who are Christians have had enough and implement the Maccabean solution? 🙁 It will be worse than 1860 to 1865. 🙁 God have mercy.

  4. What comes around, goes around. The New Atheism is childish hatred. For the most part, they talk a lot but are really cowards.
    I was once afraid of a fight. At that time I did not know that my mother is a descendant of Clan Lamont, who fought against Protestant clans rather than submit. Nor did I know of the Winged Hussars, Pulaski, Sobieski, Kosciuszko, Pilsudski, the Greater Poland Uprising, the Polish Soviet War, Gaby Grabeski or General Anders.
    Bring it on, New Atheists. I am no member of the Church of Nice.

  5. Interesting that guns and bible thumpers were castigated (can we still say targeted) together by a certain top politician a few years back.

  6. Brother #1: “Give it to Mikey!”
    .
    Brother #2: “Mikey won’t eat it – he hates everything!”
    .
    How ironic that a cereal called “Life” would have such distant and unwitting prescience. Signal graces indeed.

  7. You know, it really saddens me that a certain kind of intolerant person would look to take advantage of this awful, inexplicable tragedy by cultivating a climate of fear and hatred against other Americans in order to advance a political agenda that would deny those different from themselves their basic, fundamental rights.

  8. I’m a writer at The Friendly Atheist. Please remove the threat above by your reader T Shaw (“Somebody needs to make them pay”) that appears to be a call for violence against my colleague.

    And there is absolutely, unequivocally, nothing in her post that could remotely be considered “hate speech” or a “call to violence” — it’s precisely the opposite. The only call to violence here is by Shaw.

  9. “Somebody needs to make them pay”

    Considering that T.Shaw is a sixty something accountant I suspect that he was referring to payment in coin and not making a threat. However, to make sure that atheist bloggers sleep well at night, free from fear from attacks from aging bookkeepers, I have taken down his comment.

  10. Mr. McClarey, his comment was a call to action to all readers to “make us pay.” Do you genuinely believe most readers will take that to mean money?

    An ironic response from the author of a post entitled “Ideas and Words Have Consequences.”

  11. Yes actually, considering the readership of this blog. Lawsuits alleging damages for hate speech are not uncommon in other nations, Canada comes to mind as an example. Fortunately they have found no footing in American jurisprudence, at least in civil actions, due to the fact that one man’s hate speech is another man’s freedom of speech.

  12. Bo Gardiner, it is you atheists who have been making us Christians pay for almost 100 years now, starting with Vladimir Lenin. Your kind murdered 20 million Ukrainians in the 1930s in the Great Holodomor. Your kind murdered 60 or more million Chinese in atheist Mao Tse Tung’s Great leap Forward. Your kind starves the people of North Korea to death under an atheist regime. Your kind persecutes the Church in atheist, communist Vietnam. Your kind murdered Christian men, women and children in Mexico in the 1910s and 20s under atheist President Plutarco Elias Calles. Your kind have always been and always will be murderers. Will you pay? Not at my hand. Nor at the hand of any other authentic Christian. But we will all give an account of ourselves at the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ. I include myself in that. God help us if we fail to repent.

  13. Mr. Primavera, that’s precisely the kind of bigoted hate speech that sends unbalanced people over the edge and into violence. Words have consequences.

  14. Bo Gardiner, it is a historical fact that you atheists murdered countless tens of millions of people in the 20th century. It is equally a fact that every single one of us will stand before the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ and unless we repent – myself most of all – we go to hell for our sins, having sent ourselves there. I am not going to mince words into political correctness to staisfy some mentally deranged nut case, who more often than not is an atheist or a Muslim. Witness the recent murderous anti-Christian rampage in Oregon. Authentic Christians do NOT murder. You atheist do murder.

  15. I can’t believe an atheist comes around and starts bullying people by accusing them of inciting violence because they maintain something anathema to godless atheism. These people will not stop. They force Christian bakeries out of business for not supporting sodomy. They force Catholic adoption agencies out of business for not adopting out to sodomites. They shoot Christian kids in college. They know no bounds and they demand that we be nice to them or else? Or else what? Are you going to sue people on this blog for disagreeing with you? Are you going to write letters to police, courts, politicians, employers, demanding these people be ostracized? It started that way in Plutarco Elias Calles’ Mexico. Then began the open bloody persecution – little children tortured and killed for daring to utter the phrase Viva Cristo Rey! It was offensive to say, Long Live Christ the King, because it was a call to arms – spiritual arms and the devil who authors and incites atheism hates that. No, I do NOT advocate violence against anyone, Muslim or atheist. But I will defend my family against their violence. That is my 2nd Amendment Right, and it has Biblical precedence in 1st Maccabees chapter 2. No, I do not want to do that, and yes, hurting anyone physically would make me violently ill. But it used to be American – patriotic – to uphold such values: God, Family and Country. Now it’s offensive. Well, St Paul said the Cross has always been offensive. But every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord.

  16. If nothing else, Mr. Gardiner has usefully proven two things: (1) rare honorable exceptions aside, atheists refuse to be responsible for their anti-religious rhetoric, and (2) calls for civility are just cynical implements in the left’s culture war toolkit.

  17. Bo Gardiner wrote “And there is absolutely, unequivocally, nothing in her post that could remotely be considered “hate speech” or a “call to violence” — it’s precisely the opposite.”
    This is a dissimulation. No one claimed that Lauren Nelson wrote any such thing. The claim is that she denied and excused the hate speech of others.

  18. Tom D:

    First, there was absolutely no denial of or excuse for any hate speech.
    Secondly, I have a screencap of the comment, which absolutely makes that claim.

    Paul Primavera:

    I’m sorry you feel persecuted by someone civilly asking on an Internet forum to delete a violent threat. I’d suggest you look to countries where dissent is illegal and both Christians and atheists are imprisoned, tortured or killed to learn what persecution genuinely looks like.

    I’m not a “Mr.” I and my colleague are women. If men posting and defending a violent threat toward us is not “bullying,” but you feel bullied by us for asking that it be deleted, I recommend you visit some anti-bullying websites to learn more about the problem.

  19. Any thoughts about Mr. Weinstein’s rhetoric as quoted at the top of this thread, Miss Gardiner? Oh, and is your colleague still agnostic about whether Christians were targeted for execution in Oregon?

    I await your deflections.

  20. Folks,
    .
    You can’t make this stuff up:
    .
    https://bogardiner.wordpress.com/about/
    .
    Jesuit educated! Who would have thought! “…she went into this weird cocoon-like state and emerged a metamorphised humanist, feminist, environmentalist…” Again, who would have thought! “There she geeks out on botanizing and birds…” This ain’t fiction, folks!
    .
    Meanwhile, Christians who were real scientists (Father Georges LeMaitre, Dr Louis Pasteur, the contemporary Dr Stephen Barr and Dr Hugh Ross, etc.) are to be derided and ridiculed for their religion.

  21. Bo Gardiner, the only place where atheists are persecuted in exactly where Christians are persecuted: in Muslim countries. Everywhere else you atheists gain control, you end up doing exactly what President Plutarco Elias Calles of Mexico did in the early 20th century. You are the persecuters. You do it now by sending Christians to be sued in court for not baking cakes for sodomites. That is but one of many examples. You marginalize. Then you ostracize. Then you incarcerate. Then you torture and execute. You did it in Russia. You did it in China. You did it in Mexico. You did it in North Korea. You did it in Cuba. Everywhere you go, that is what you do.

  22. Ah. Well, I can certainly understand why you’d take that tack, favoring the evidence that downplays the Christian hater angle.

    I mean, having to think about possible downsides to an irreligious future could be unpleasant. Better to handwave it away, like was done with the executions of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad snf Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha in North Carolina.

    Whew–just a parking dispute! No way anything else could have played into it–certainly not enlightened progressive secular thinking! No ma’am–blame the gun, because marinating in anti-religious rhetoric is good for the soul. Well, it would be, if people had them.

    And anyway: soul-searching is only for those who believe in souls, amirite?

  23. I recall seeing a video of the atheist Daniel Dennett at a conference in China where he advocated the state taking children away from religious believers so that they can be raised properly. Ah, yes, building the great future on a foundation of human rights violations.

  24. Why should anyone be surprised that an atheist has problems recognizing facts, when he can’t even get the first and most fundamental one right?

  25. I am also curious – how does an atheist determine something is “hate” speech? To classify something as “hate”, there must be some meaning to this word/standard of “hate” that is beyond merely the eye of the beholder (i.e., not merely subjective). Otherwise, it is just random molecules bouncing around and interacting for no particular purpose, with no particular meaning. Hence, no such thing as “hate.” It is all just a matter of personal opinion, and therefore Bo’s definition of “hate” is no more binding on anyone than mine would be.

  26. C Matt, in this case, the person in question – Bo Gardiner – claims to be female, so the proper pronoun would be she. However, in today’s genderless society of atheism, humanism and secularism, one wonders.

  27. Any thoughts about Mr. Weinstein’s rhetoric as quoted at the top of this thread

    I am sure the SPLC, ADL and ACLU are jumping right on it. You know how vigilant they are about stopping hate speech.

  28. “….how does an atheist determine something is “hate” speech? ”

    As we all know, hate speech is merely a political form of censorship of the truth that makes the untruthful angry.

  29. Actually, the proper pronoun is “he.” The sentence was a universal reference to atheists, not to a particular person, so the universal pronoun “he” was utilized. I refuse to bend over to grammatical sodomy.

  30. In other words, I did not intend to limit the observation to Bo. But I can see how it could be interpreted that way in the context of this thread.

  31. I think the speech Nazis want to substitute “he” and “she” with something like “zhe”. All I know is that once we get used to “zhe” someone will find offense with it and a new pronoun will need to be invented. Social engineers never rest.

  32. C Matt, we are in violent agreement on the proper use of pronouns. May I say that without being accused of inciteful hate speech: “violent agreement”?

  33. I have a screencap of the comment,

    Gotta love this. No doubt Bo can later throw up a pity party post about “dem mean Christians,” because some commenter on some website said something less than nice. The world awaits in breathless anticipation this coming manifesto.

  34. Yep. She’s the *real* victim here, a brave freethinking truth-teller womyn beset by vicious male theocrats. Meanwhile, she’s working obsessively to make sure no one thinks Christians can ever be targeted for murder by those who share her mindset (cough*Holodomor*cough). I’m sure the epistemic closure is comforting for her, which is nice.

  35. Donald, as a sixty something accountant I take offense at you using that definition in a derogatory way to describe T.Shaw. Policing speech is so much fun!!
    On the other hand you have to give Bo points for courage, I haven’t laughed so much in a while. She walked into a den of lions and got mauled (I was going to say eaten but I controlled myself)

  36. Careful Dale, she probably just screenshotted you. And based on her post linked to by Paul Primavera, she’s no doubt also cyberstalking checking out all other online profiles to get a glimpse of just who the real Dale Price is. Right after she googles the meaning of “epistemic closure.”

Comments are closed.