Saturday, February 10, 2007

Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Students at San Francisco State University are in serious trouble. For what you may ask. For attending a demonstration and stomping on a flag. That's all. But hold your horses. It wasn't the American flag they were destroying. It was Hamas and Hezbollah flags they threw to the ground and stomped on. College Republicans at SFSU, apparently there really are Republicans in San Francisco, were holding an anti-terrorism rally when the incident took place. But it gets better. The Associated Students board called this act "hateful religious intolerance" and "pre-meditated stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence." Now, like Michael wonders, what do you think would have happened if Students Against War and the International Socialist Organization would have demonstrated by stomping on a U.S. flag? Would that have called that hateful? I'm guessing not. I guess if you destroy an American flag your exercising your free speech, but if you destroy a Muslim flag, that happens to have the word Allah on it, your a racist and are intolerant and could be expelled from school.


john k said... all know this is biblical prophesy comming true in our lifetimes? The Tribluation spoken of after the taking away of Christs church(believers); starts in a time when Good becomes Evil and Evil is Good. A total reversal of what is right and wrong in society and culture. Sounds like what is happening here in this article. Anyone else see this?

Za said...

Oh, well if that prophecy is coming true then I guess the world has been taken over once, divided into four world-spanning kindgoms, gone through 11 kings of the kingdom of the north (who have warred continuously with the kingdom of the south), the eleventh of whom has taken over the world again and currently rules as the king who exalts himself, hmm?

Or perhaps your knowledge of end-times prophecy is as lacking as any other who believes in the rapture. Perhaps you want to be reading your bible a little more thoroughly.

Anywho, the thing I find amusing about this post is that Chris seems for flag burning if it's anything but the American flag - the opposite (and just as hypocritical) stance to the one he's deriding.

RudeBoyMurphy said...

"stomping on a U.S. flag? Would that have called that hateful?"

I suspect you or John (among other people) might call that hateful, for starters what else they might get called, I dare not speculate.
I don't expect that anyone burning/stomping on an American flag, in America as a form of protest, is going to do so without someone excising the lesser know right to kick their ass!

Forget about flags, an equivalent symbol is a 'cross'(symbol of allah vs. symbol of christ). Would someone abusing the symbol of the cross be tolerated?
(try setting a cross on fire, see how that ends)

john k said...

Za; Your biblical knowledge is as lacking as the rest of your knowledge. If only you could admit you have a problem with truth and knowledge(fact being you really do not have any); then you could start to become educated on matters you seem to think you know everything about.

RudeBoyMurphy said...

John, it seems Good and Evil have gone from two dimensions to one....
The issue is religious intolerance, does the question of 'right and wrong' become answerable differently depending on which religion is being persecuted?
... cos it's pretty clear that Christ didn't advocate intolerance. You could describe Christ as history's greatest liberal (if you were a Christian)...
How does that tally with your oft repeated assertion, John, that 'liberalism is a mental illness'?
Does that make Christ one of the more mentally ill figures from history?

John K said...

Well; I guess maybe I should answer that question and the others your comment raises but I will keep it short since it is not what the thread is about nor is it something Chris thinks is appropriate for his blog's comment section.

Christ did not intend intolerance??
"I'AM THE way THE truth and THE life; NO MAN comes to the Father but by ME."
Sounds pretty intolerant and clear to me. How about you?
As far as Liberalism; Christ did not care for politics nor did he advocate political positions in that day.
"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's; Render unto God what is God's." Making Christ a political figure is a mistake of theology and doctrine.
You could argue your point with some validity when you use a Bible that incorporates "Dynamic Equivelency" in the translation.
Which would be every Bible printed after the King James Version.
I however Am a "Literalist"; so I do not translate pollitical meanings into scripture like so many other people like to.

Za said...

Za; Your biblical knowledge is as lacking as the rest of your knowledge.
Oh, of course. Which is why you haven't backed up anything you said. Because MY knowledge is lacking.

As far as Liberalism; Christ did not care for politics nor did he advocate political positions in that day.
He would have been hard pressed to find liberals to have supported.

However, his statements fall right in line with the philosophical reasoning for liberalism. Even in the KJV, his statements still fall that way.

Allow me to undo your entire political stance with one quote:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48

You've never once even tried to follow that one when it comes to politics. To paraphrase yourself, your own stance is "fuck anyone who gets in the way of America" and "bomb the crap out of anyone who threatens us". Great way to follow Christ John.

Because it's not about "reading political meanings" - it's about taking a certain attitude out of it to apply to your WHOLE life, not just the people you go to church with.

john k said...

Very true Za; I do claim not to be perfect; but lacking in many areas. Have you ever been able to make that claim? Of coarse not because your religion of Liberalism and politics allows you to be superior to others.
I'am not perfect but a flawed human being in need of Christ and his grace and mercy and salavation. You do not need him because you are God unto yourself.
I still have my whole life to work out that part of scripture and make no bones about it; that part is what EVERY person in the world needs to work on.
But at least I'am saved. You however cannot make that claim. Because you do not believe he was God manifest in the flesh and therefore could not have been the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Dooming yourself to hell and the lake of fire.
Comparativly speaking; my flaws are very small compared to yours.

john k said...

BTW: I do not have to back up evrything I say. This is a blog comments section. Not a dissertation for my PHD. You would do well to understand that. But rarely you understand anything except your blind hatred of Christianity, Conservatism and America in general.

Za said...

Have you ever been able to make that claim?
Sure, I do lack in plenty of areas. I'm quick to get angry for instance.

And I thought I asked you to quit it with the fake omniscience crap? It only makes you look foolish when you make such proclamations about how people are when you honestly don't have a clue.

And I find it interesting the way you interpret me saying that Jesus isn't God as meaning that God wasn't present in the flesh. They're two different things.

Oh, and no, you don't have to back up everything you say. But again, it makes you look foolish to proclaim that your knowledge is superior and that you're obviously right if you never back up anything you say. You don't even throw out a few references to prove your point, you just state that you are unarguably right. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy of the highest order.

Oh, and for you to tell me about MY blind hatred is just rich.

John K said...

Truth hurts you huh? Thats rich indeed. Don't hate the players; hate the game.

RudeBoyMurphy said...

(I was going to keep out of this, respecting Chris' wishes, but having 'opened a can of worms', I might make a partial apology/explanation, to put this line of debate to bed)
The claim 'Christ is history's greatest liberal'... might have spawned a misunderstanding..
I was thinking more of 'liberal humanism', rather than the narrow financial/political doctrine as defined in US politics.
(maybe John was thinking of something different than the broader concept of 'liberal', which owes it's original partially to the universal compassion of Christ?)

Jesus may have said that it was only through his message that a person may be redeemed, and that he had no interest in politics.
It is because Christ's message was universal, it does not matter where you have come from (geographic, religious, social, political, etc), what matters is the sincerity of your belief. That is not intolerance, that is universal, and that a person has not yet come to believe, is no basis for persecution 'forgive them father, for they know not what they do'(see OP).
Christ would be the last person that I'd describe as 'intolerant'.

Lastly, if you use articles of people's faith to make a political point (see OP), then you have to expect to offend someone.

John k said...

You are a wise person Mr. Murphy.
I agree that with which you speak above in regard to politcally defining Christ. It cannot be done with todays standards. Nor should it be.

Za said...

Truth hurts you huh?
No - it was more the irony of it coming from someone who's repeatedly stated he "longs for the day" when 1.4 billion people are killed. Especially when my goal in life is to see as many people as possible NOT get killed.

johnk said...

LOL! NOW who's making up things about whom?
For the "Millionth time"; I will state I don't want People to die; but an Idiology and Cult false religion. But; if the people who hold those idiologies and false religions do parish; I will not shed any tears for they will have reaped what they have sown.

Za said...

Actually the original quote was "I can only hope for the day that my people will play this war on a personal scale the way Muslims play it now. When that starts to happen; the war on Islam will be over. Over for them because they will quickly cease to exist. I long for that day."

So actually, you not only stated that you long for the day that evey Muslim is dead, but you also stated that you long for the day that America starts acting the same way you characterise them. Doubley damning.

Email is a wonderful thing for storing quotes.

john k said...

Taken out of context on the subject(s) we were dicussing via email. "Which everyone knows can be made to mean anything for those who post them."..You once said.
The only thing anyone really knows from your post above is not to debate or discuss anything with YOU because you will twist and replay it to justify anything you care to say about the original poster.
I wonder if you will save my quote from two posts above? Heck NO! Because it proves you wrong!

John K said...

About the only thing constructive about this thread is to prove how unconstructive it is to argue with Children.

RudeBoyMurphy said...

"Taken out of context ... can be made to mean anything"
Well, John, if Za has taken your comment and twisted the meaning so it says something different than it did in it's original context, that would grievous.
Perhaps you'd like to explain the context where: "I can only hope for the day that my people will play this war on a personal scale the way Muslims play it now. When that starts to happen; the war on Islam will be over. Over for them because they will quickly cease to exist. I long for that day."
doesn't mean what Za has claimed.
If Za has got it wrong, now is your chance to put it right...
(It seems like a complete quote, I can't readily picture a second meaning, but will happily delay conclusions until after you've 'set the matter straight')

john k said...

No Thank You. One cannot prove something that did not happen or was not meant. Suffice to say I stand by my post of 5 above concerning this matter of Za's.

Indian Chris said...

Okay, comments for this post have been closed. It's come to my attention that they have become way off topic. Not really sure how this became a discussion about Christ and his politics, but I'm taking away your freedom of speech for this. And from now on, try to stay on topic.