And that is just as bad! Christianity isn't that much worse than any of a dozen other religions and sects, whenever someone decides to take things too literally or fundamentally. (No idea what you are referring to with Willy Wonka though.)

I would hope that by now people would know that I am not Christain.

And No, I will disagree with you on this point, and it is your belief in this point that makes me use the label Biggot.

The idea that some things should not be read by Children exists in all cultures in all countries, and people use whatever is convinent for them to convince other people in thier society about it. In this case, he lives in a Christain commuity and so uses Christain terms. He happens to have been born a christain and raised in a Christain socioeconomic place, which had the upbringing such that in his world if you evoke the bible nobody will argue against you.

Southpark was able to touch upon this simple fact very nicely in thier Wii Episode.


During the 60's you had people who would say such things like "We can't raise the minimum wage, its those lazy black people who are just trying to get a free ride. If they weren't black and if some people didn't support any cause the black people bring up, then nobody would want to have minimum wage!" I am paraphrasing, but I heard such a quote on Martin Luther King Jr. Day on the radio.

Read up on the History of the Pogroms during the 1,000 - 1600s.

By attributing thoughts you don't like to a particular group, you ignore the reality of those thoughts and create scapegoats.

Man, you just arn't getting it.

If this guy lived in China, he would be complaining about Farenheit 451 because they burn Mao's book. If he lived in Germany during 1945 he would be complaining that they burn Mein Kamph. If he was a fan of Shakespear, he would be complaining that they burned shakespeare.

His religion has NOTHING to do with his views about books he wants his children to read.

Did you even read my post, or the article?

WRONG. It is a reason. HE SAYS SO.

Are you honestly saying that China's or Germany's extreme nationalism is a good thing? I think that would be equally as stupid a justification as religion. That there are other dangerous motivators aside from religion doesn't prove religion is blameless. Especially when it clearly does encourage intolerance and censorship.

And please, a fan of Shakespeare complaining that students shouldn't read a book about the consequences of burning books and censorship, in which a fictional shakespeare book is burned? Yeah... right.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48252

With people like that getting so much coverage and so many followers, one has to wonder why its any different than any of the other groups who so often get turned into scapegoats.

Your hatred runs so deep, you don't even recognize it.

I am not defending anyone or saying anything is a good thing. I am only saying that this guys views do not exist because of Christaianity. If Christaianity never existed this guy would STILL be saying the exact same thing with different catch phrases.

I think Dawkins makes some good points. I'm not sure the same can be said for you Daggy, old chap. Such as the above.. I'm left thinking.. "eh?" I'm sure you've got a point.. but I just can't immediately see what it is.

That is a determinism I do not agree with. But I guess it's wholly debatable.

That's fine, I'm saying if this guy never existed some Christians somewhere would STILL be saying the exact same thing.

And... what is with the Richard Dawkins link? I didn't follow that one.

Edit: Oh, ok. That quote was in reference to Dawkins and not the book banner? Of course he'd be saying the same things, he's against religion in all its forms, isn't he?

Well.. having read him, I don't think he's -that- unreasonable. I don't much like the way he tries to mould his views into the basis of an atheistic movement of its own, because I don't much like evangelism either way... but I -really- don't think he's some monstrous hate-driven weirdo who attacks Christianity for no other reason than because it's there.

Ok, lets go back to Racism... I think we all understand the fallicies of racism today.

The following is an example, and not anything I think is remotely true.

You have the following Claims.

1. Black people are the downfall of our society, without black people we wouldn't have crime.

2. Proof: Black people make up the largest percentage of people who commit crimes

3. Here is some video of a black person committing a crime. Evidence that black people love commiting crimes.

4. Sure, not all black people commit crimes, but you can't deny that some black groups advocate crime against white people. Here is a website of "its just a joke ofcourse" of black people who have suggested we commit crimes against white people.

As it turns out, despite those being widely held beliefs for many years, people commit crimes for numerous reasons, and groups that advocate hurting white people, don't suggest that because they are black, they suggest it for the same reasons that some white people suggest hurting black people.


The act of wanting to ban books is not a trait that exists because of some Religious ideology. It doesn't even exist because of some Nationalistic ideaology. Generally, those ideas exist because people think that its better for people to not be exposed to things that they don't like, then to be exposed and to confront it.

I bet you, you could get a petition signed by college students banning Farenheit 451 if you worded it properly.

Just like you had a bunch of Women at a Feminist confrence signing a petition to "End women's Sufferage" When people are ignorant about the point, they end up doing very ironic and stupid things.


If this video should be mocking anybody, it should be mocking people who don't fully read books before critisiing them.

That's nice Daganev, and a perfect analogy. Should we say that anyone who criticizes racism as leading to terrible behaviour is being a bigot? And "their hatred runs so deep they can't even see it"?

No, we justifiably denounce racism. Even though it is of course not responsible for every evil act in the whole world, that doesn't mean we don't hold it accountable for what it does promote.

Ok, I'm done.

Its clear you are a big fan of Dawkings.

Oh, come off it. What does Dawkins have to do with this argument?

Let me clarify, because this is what the argument looks like to me. Maybe you're trying to say something else, and I'm not following:

"Religion teaches people to do silly, ridiculous things, such as the guy who bans a book because it mentions God or the bible. I don't like religion."

"You jew-hater! Don't talk down religion, you can't assume one guy defines the whole thing."

"No, but look at what the Bible says about this and what Christians have done in the past."

"You're so full of hatred and bigotry, I can't stand it! Religion didn't start bookburning, not every book burning is by Christians."

"No, obviously there are many reasons people do stupid things. That doesn't mean religious teaching isn't among them, or responsible for quite a few."

"Dawkins disciple! You just aren't worth arguing with, so hmph."

So... can you restate your points if these are not representative?

I wouldn't call myself a disciple, but I do admire Dawkins' writings. Should I report your post as harassment, Daganev? You obviously use the idea with the intent to denigrate us.

What's a seven course meal for an Irish Catholic? A six pack and a potato.

How do they make roads in South Africa? They make the natives lay down and have every other one smile.

What's the difference between a Rottweiler and a Jew? The dog eventually lets go.


Blessed are the martyrs, for they shall get laid!

I think I've managed to cover everyone in my family in at least one of those. Are you going to claim that I'm engaging in hate speech against all of them? (NB: If a moderator feels inclined to edit this, do be sure to sign it, that we may collectively mock you.)

Good. Now that that's out of the way...yes, people do tend to skew authoritative sources to suit their own arguments. What you're missing is that these arguments are still a product of the society in which the arguer was raised. Some cultures, and by extension, some religions, do not readily support certain lines of thought. Limitation on the freedom of speech is not a particularly Christian-centric idea. It simply corresponds to the European culture in which Christianity thrives. This particular facet of European culture is more or less dead in America, though. It's perpetuated almost solely by Christians, most notably certain reactionary Protestant sects. That is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, though. So, without further ado, we're moving on.

Brilliant conclusion!