It matters to me. Thanks for checking in.
You’re a liar and a bigot. I’ve given you the link to this three times now and you’ve either ignored it or are dishonest beyond belief. Here is what it says:
There are some Christians [url=http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/resurrection.html]who believe that Jesus was not resurrected. Nevertheless, if I said, “You Christians believe in a physically impossible feat: the resurrection of Jesus,” I would not be lying, notwithstanding the fact that I knew about the Christian skeptics.
The vast majority of Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Just like the vast majority of fundies believe in withholding from gay folks the right to marry the person they love.
Daniel
And as I’ve pointed out, one person does not outweigh the many, many thousands of fundies who oppose gay rights.
Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party. Does that mean that Nazis did not persecute Jews?
My father-in-law is an ardent Republican who is planning to vote for Kerry. That must mean that no Republicans vote for Bush, right?
**Lib[/], you have lost all perspective and ability to reason. I’m going to ignore your personal insults because that’s your illness talking, not you.
Actually, lib, I do think there is one interesting addition you could make to this conversation.
Using the rationale of your OP, would you agree that the Administrators of this board ought to ban, as forbidden hate speech, the phrase “politically correct”? Why or why not?
Daniel
You know, there is something else about this debate that is kind of bothering me. The brush may get a little broad here, but stick with me.
First, I am going to assume two things:
[ul]
[li]The majority of Fundamentalist Christians are to the Right of the political spectrum.[/li][li]The term “Hate Speech” is a Liberal and/or Left construct and thus is “owned” by that group(s)[/li][/ul]
Therefore, given that the Right (broadly speaking) has been pretty vocal in mocking Liberals (again broadly speaking) for attempts to be Politically Correct and using terms like Hate Speech, it is the height of hypocrisy for them to suddenly decide to adopt it when it pleases them to do so.
Tell you what, you guys want to get your people under control in terms of the other “Hate Speech” that is going on, and we’ll think about not calling you fundies anymore.
Gun control and small government are not religous issues, are they? That leaves abortion as the only issue with which he shares Fundamentalist values.
Let’s not confuse Fundamentalist and Conservative.
Lib, given your belief that not all Fundamentalists oppose gay rights (most Fundamentalists that I know would argue that this is a key tenet of Fundamentalism) perhaps it would help (it would certainly help me) if you could give us your working definition for the term.
He’s actually taking a stand against the conservatives. One dictionary definition is “the interpretation of every word in the Bible as literal truth”. Works for me. Wenke does believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but that it condemns divorce and judgmentalism even more. From the link I gave, you can get the full article where he explains himself fairly thoroughly, including his youthful friendship with a gay boy.
I understand that they are on opposite ends of the semantics spectrum, but I don’t think fundie is analogous to hand-stabber. If anything, “fundie” is analogous to “pedophile”.
They are both used, in many cases, to allege opinions and behaviors to a certain class of people, not all of whom actually behave that way (i.e. religiously active politics and child molestation, respectively.) There are certainly non-religously active fundamentalists and non-predatory pedophiles, but people rarely use the term to refer to those people, since both of them are much less visible.
But when people use the terms, I do think it is hateful against those who do not conform to the stereotype, since restricting religous freedom and child molestation are looked at with such disdain today. Especially since the terms are ostensibly used to refer to an entire group, while alleging behavior to them that properly only manifests itself in part of the group.
So, we can ban “fundie” if we also ban “pedophile” 
On the other hand, I think hand-stabber is roughly analogous to femi-nazi. Its sort of the opposite of the above analogy: a term ostensibly referring to part of a group is implied to apply to the entire group.
Thus, often we see glib references to hand-stabber or femi-nazi in response to a poster or political figure, but when you accuse the user of that term of actually referring to the poster in that way, you get a heavy dose of back-pedalling. “No, I wasnt referring to the poster, just to the people who (get violent at any mention of religion)/(want every woman to have an abortion.)” No True Scotsman at its finest.
Meanwhile, the rest of us reading the debate are 
because, if the poster was NOT referring to the other poster as a hand-stabber, it become a complete non-sequitor, and thus more proof of a certain posters bat-shit insanity… (Note, if certain bat-shit insane poster thinks it is about them, it is not, it only refers to the truly bat-shit insane :))
No, but it certainly means that not all Nazis persecuted Jews, and that’s the point I’ve made repeatedly about fundamentalists. As I said in my first response to you, your brush is too broad. You paint the whole group. Look at your damnation of Twin — “you people” this and “you people” that. Do you even know Twin?
So does the vast majority of African-Americans. So what? Do you call them “blackies”?
So not all Nazis persecuted Jewqs–was that not an aberration? Wasn’t the extermination of every Jew from the face of Europe official Nazi policy? Not in Lib’s world, apparently. Because Oskar Schindler sheltered Jews, the Holocaust had no connection to the Nazi regime. the Holocaust was just 6 million unrelated acts of passion.
I don;t have to. Twin is a member of a group whose stated intention is enmity toward gay people and the so-called "gay lifestyle, " therefore, absent any evidence to the contrary, the presumption must be that **Twin ** shares this goal.
Why do you have so much trouble distinguishing between a genetic trait and a freely chosen belief system?
If that is somehow different from bigotry, I don’t see how.
Are you saying that African-Americans oppose gay marriage due to a genetic trait? I don’t think I’m the one having trouble distinguishing things here.
This is a different claim than “Neurological researcher, VS Ramachandran and others have determined experimentally that there seems to be a link between the brain’s limbic system and religious faith. That’s why you cannot now simply declare that you will believe in God any more than you can declare that you will be attracted to men (or women, whichever is the case).”
Saying that something is not necessarily a choice I agree with (especially if by that you mean not necessarily in every given situation, as in it might be possible sometimes and not in others). But that’s different than saying that you cannot simply choose. That’s what I was originally responding to.
The hell? I’m saying that if an African-American was outspoken in their support of the Fundamentalist agenda that I’d call the ones that chose to self-identify with that agenda a Fundy. Why would I chose to insult the genetic trait when I can insult the behavior I find offensive?
I think we can all agree that the world would be ever so nicer if no one used derogatory language at all. That said, it is obvious that you are being willfully obtuse here.
If I call someone a Blackie, I am using that term in obvious reference to that persons genetically determined attributes. If I call someone a Fundie I am obviously referring to their politics and freely chosen belief system.
See?
So what’s the difference between your stance and someone who says that they call only the lazy ones are “niggers”?
Okay, well I buy that. It is indeed possible to “believe” on an intellectual level practically anything under the sun, and that could be a free choice.
Wow! I think that I finally got it! Lib in not asking blindingly stupid questions that obviously miss the entire point because he is loony, nor because he is ignorant. I think that it is some strange mutated Socratic method thing (if Socrates had huffed paint, mind you).
He is trying to lead us to enlightenment is some mental Kung-Fu exercise in which he tries to keep us off balance by answering questions either with nonsense or as if a completely different question were asked. Glad that I finally figured that out.
Sigh. You know, I was really hoping that you wouldn’t drag this one out. The term “nigger” is dependent on a genetic trait outside of the person’s control (it has also been historically used for many reasons which have nothing to do with freely chosen behavior).
Fundie (or Fundy) has no racial or genetic component, it is solely about behavior. So, am I not allowed to call a black person “lazy” because that’s a potential definition of “nigger”?
But I suspect you know all of this and you’re just being an ass.
well, 'cause ‘fundie’ refers to specifically what is disliked, vs. ‘niggers’ which is refering to the racial identifier. the correct correlation is calling blacks who believe in fundementalist religions “fundies” and lazy folks “lazy”. But I suspect you knew this.