Inside Sport

Tackling the politically-correct notion that it's not about ... and others do it too


https://forum.insidesport.com.au/Topic2267685.aspx

By Uncle Sepp - 21 Nov 2015 3:08 PM

Would be interested in people's comments on this video, especially the chart that is progressively shown e.g. @7:39 (but the video explains it systematically).

It addresses two common themes that just seem to go round and round in forum discussion on this topic.

[youtube]Sz2tTDFmCzY[/youtube]

https://youtu.be/Sz2tTDFmCzY

Edited by uncle sepp: 21/11/2015 03:11:17 PM

Edited by uncle sepp: 21/11/2015 03:15:10 PM
By Kamaryn - 23 Nov 2015 3:16 PM

AzzaMarch wrote:
Kamaryn wrote:
AzzaMarch wrote:
Kamaryn wrote:
Lol @ the attempt to make Anders Brevik Christian. He explicitly said in his manifesto that he doesn't believe in God or Jesus. He means the same thing that Dawkins means when Dawkins calls himself "a cultural Anglican". You want to call Brevik Christian, you better start calling Dawkins Christian.

Edited by kamaryn: 23/11/2015 12:18:28 PM


Um... the reason he massacred the "Young Labour Party" retreat in Norway was because he opposed their policy of multiculturalism. He is blatant about what he did, and he did it for what he saw as the defence of Christianity and "European Christian values".


Yes. And he defined his "European Christian values" as having nothing to do with believing in God, or Jesus. In other words, it was purely about culture, not religion. Dawkins describes himself the same way: "a cultural Anglican". If you want to say Brevik was Christian, you have to say Dawkins is Christian.


So what? You're saying that like no one has ever done something terrible in the name of Jesus!

Spanish Inquisition? Witch trials of Salem? Religious fighting in Sudan?

The point is - it is possible for someone to do something horrible in the name of their religious beliefs, without that meaning that everyone else who shares the basics of their beliefs (belief in Jesus, Mohammed etc) feel the same way, or somehow share responsibility indirectly for that person's actions.


Did you read what I said? I said Breivik can't be identified as a Christian because he admits he doesn't actually believe in what Christianity teaches. I never said Christians haven't done anything wrong, nor did I equate those with religious beliefs of any persuasion with horrible acts or a shared responsibility. I never spoke about Christians in general at all, and didn't mention Islam or any other religion. You are reading into something that isn't there. I simply corrected a factual error that seems to get repeated a lot when our ideological rhetoric comes as the expense of fact-checking. If you are concerned with the truth (and I'm sure you are from your posts), hopefully the Breivik is Christian mistake is one you won't be part of.