Coreece

Nothing - there was a lot going on with all that. And even tho the tsarsist favoring of the church played a roll in the war, I'm specifically talking about after the bolos assumed power and how their aniti-religious campaigns transgressed to a more militant, violent approach over time. So I actually went and read some more history. Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in 1917, then right after they fought a Civil War. Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin came to power 3 years later in 1927. Jeeze, I didn't say that Stalin came to power decades later, so you may also want to bolden the word "atrocities." I'm talking about the hieght of those atrocities over time - It looked very different from when he first came to power. Here, I posted this a while back. It might help you understand more clearly where I'm coming from: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/267117-solstice-celebration/?do=findComment&comment=4880994 Here are some other links about history on the League of Militant Atheists and their propaganda, along with the history of christian persecution and other anti-religious campaigns against various religions under soviet atheist control. I know they're wiki links, but it's a good start. And for what it's worth, thanks for at least trying to have a normal conversation.

Well I know wolfriverjoe's statements were singling out Christians and possibly other religious people as well. All you have to do is read what he wrote. But thanks for proving my point about the inability to acknowledge or even recognize it even when staring you straight in the face. But you still need due process to determine the extent the law was broken, if at all. You don't know the motives, nor the reason why some of these people would be in these large groups in the first place - and even then the logistics to justly implement such a system would be damn near impossible. And what if one of these people didn't even get sick from the event for which they were denied due process? Let's say they had a change of heart and ended up getting infected months later by interactions with a group of protesters trespassing on their property? How long does such a revocation of medical treatment last, and who is going to be bothered to verify it all, the hospital receptionist? The nurses? The doctors? I suppose we can just change it to the hypocrite oath. And what about all the richer people that would have no problem buying their way in? You guys really didn't think this through, did you? I've already explained several times now that I'm talking about the fostering of the non-violent anti-religious mindset that ultimately lead to that in the first place. And there were many scientific atheists that were appalled by some aspects of the leftists' militant approach against religion, but they just stood by and watched until it was too late to do anything about it. Ya, who's idea of separation, Lenin's? How high do people want to build that wall before they start kicking religious folks out of congress and arresting clergy - both of which have already been expressed in this forum and elsewhere, and is somewhat reminiscent of how it all started under Lenin and shortly after his death - especially after his death. It's seems people never really want to talk about how it all started, they just jump straight to the atrocities committed under Stalin decades later because it's much easier to distance themselves from that.

Then why do you write the things you write? Why do you misrepresent what people say and bend logic to breaking point to claim you're going to be the victim of a coming genocide You're the one that's misrepresenting what people say. You're doing in right now with your typical selective quoting and leaving out the specific part that contradicts your flat out lying. And then you had the balls to say that turtle and I go out of our way to pick fights with you. Oh spare me. So was the Russian Orthodox Church, until it wasn't. Certain denominations may be gaining traction/influence in this country, but I've certainly acknowledged that it's decreasing in popularity overall. However it does seem to be growing around the world despite persecution that still exists today. I've already made the mistake of thinking you'd be honest enough for me to open up about it, but I was wrong. Lets just say you know nothing about what my faith is based on, and leave it at that. You really need to take your own advice on communicative rationality because right now there's really no point in having a discussion with you.

That is a common excuse of yours. Maybe you should take a bit more time thinking about what you are reading before posting. But according to Nigel it's not about what's actually being read, otherwise he would've just posted a direct quote like I did for wolfriverjoe. For Nigel, it's about "the way he writes the message," and I'm not responsible for the biased electrical pulses bouncing around in nigel's head, neither is Ron.

No, I've made it quite clear why I absolutely and unequivocally do not agree with him, and how repulsive it is to boot. Oh, "the way he writes the message." Okie-dokie.

What part of "due process" in my post don't you understand? So you don't agree with proverbs 27:12? - "A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences" What was that whole thing about consequences you were just talking about? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't know what you're talking about, but I have no problem with self defense. Do you?

Adjective upon adjective to paint any non-believer into your prejudiced wonderland of christian pseudo superiority.. Its no wonder you and evangelicals love trump and his racist bigotry. Tomorrow is your day of self congratulatory superiority. Where you can join those who would walk out the chapel doors and be ready to screw the world. Just like your other favorite idol of worship, trump. QED

Several areas of scripture immediately come to mind: Proverbs 27:12 - A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Other areas would be those that place more emphasis on spiritual life vs the temporal, as well as those speaking on the "wages of sin" and how each man is "appointed to die once." And no, I don't see that as christian bashing - wolfriverjoe set a new bar for that in this forum. What do you think? https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/268741-nothing-about-this-is-a-protest-nsfw-racial-expletives/?do=findComment&comment=4911648

"Office Space"

I explained it right there in that second paragraph. It can't be any clearer, yet you still apparently have a problem with comprehension, which is probably why you often misrepresent the abundance of article's you repost ad nauseam - at least the ones I bother to check anyway. Quality rather than quantity - you should try it sometime. You only feel that way because you're blinded by your own hateful bias and deluded by your continual stereotyping of religious folks, much like the ignorant working class under soviet atheist rule and their vile propaganda.

Why specifically the young people? I would say because we're now just learning about the long term effects of the disease, possibly even degenerative effects over time.

Ok, so would you target minority groups the same way? Not that it would make it any better. There are millions of "stupid people who endanger others" everyday. I don't agree with their actions either, but I hardly think this crisis warrants abandonment of foundational principles, like due process. Unfortunately people like you disagree - and I could never get on board with those who suffer from such dysfunctional thinking. If you even bothered to read any of stories on the subject at that time without all the bloodthirsty rush to judgement in this dog shit forum, you'd see that those churches did implement social distancing measures - one even purchased a $100k air purification system in addition. Not sure about the masks, but that was before science changed it's mind again.

And then I said it's about the silence and/or inability to recognize anti-religious bigotry in this forum, specifically wolfriverjoe's comments. So here, do you think the following statements are an appropriate response to the covid crisis? Do you not see the hate? How would you feel if I had said something similar about the BLM protesters that were also exercising their 1st amendment right at a time when they felt they needed to the most? What if Trump had decided to start documenting all people that were congregating in large numbers, denying them medical treatment and leaving them for dead? Seriously, it's disgusting and even more deplorable than much of the stuff listed in the deplorables thread. I mean this is the mindset that allows atrocities to start if left unchecked, especially in times of crisis and instability, and it's how sick people justify it. Extra credit: Do you think my initial response below to wolfriverjoe's comment was appropriate?

Maybe when I was a young overzealous christian in my 20s when I felt that various attacks against me and my willingness to persist may have somehow validated/strengthened my faith - but that's honestly not how I look at it anymore. And tho there is some truth in that line of thought, I think Christians need to be careful of that type of mindset as well, lest it become some type of self-fulfilling prophesy. I don't really feel that many of the bigoted attacks against religion and stereotyping that we see today really apply to, or are necessarily directed at my flavor of christianity, regardless of what others may perceive that to be. To be fair, I certainly think that some attacks against religion are valid. There was a period after my conversion to protestantism when all I really bitched about were the Catholics - go figure, right? But nothing good ever came from that. And I think many people here are in a similar place given that they also came from a somewhat religious background - but they still hold onto that anger or hate for religion or whatever you want to call it until it takes on life of it's own - which is why it was so easy for wolfriver to immediately abandon basic principles in a time of crisis and suggest that certain types of Christians be denied medical treatment and left to die. If similar things were said about any other protected class you people would be tearing your robes with righteous indignance. Ultimately, there's really no way for me to know how that type of hatred will manifest in future generations, especially if it's left unchecked, but history gives us a strong indication and is still prevalent in many other parts of the world. And your repetitive implication that it's somehow ok because we're the majority just demonstrates a deliberate lack of foresight and gross ignorance of history behind the subject. Right, wolfriver flips out and suggests denying Christians medical treatment and leaving them for dead, people are destroying their own cities, smashing statues and bitching about Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's instant rice, and I'm the one that's trippin, lol. And another thing, the main justification for all that (other than joe's comments) is "because racism." So is it really that much of a stretch to think that similar groups in the distant future that hold additional anti-religious sentiments would start smashing churches in an attempt to stomp them out as well, given it's history of racism/homophobia/misogyny, whether perceived or not?

I don't do it for you joe, nor the people like you that I'm replying to - that would be a waste of time. But it does speak to the level of anti-religious bigotry, double standards and seeds of hate that we see in this forum, which I would say are in the germinating stages if compared to what we saw with the soviets. I have no idea what you're talking about, and quite frankly neither do you. That was in reference to the following post, where I linked to yet another one of wolfriver's bigoted replies - and he wasn't talking about me: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/267518-covid-19/?do=findComment&comment=4897794 You mean when you spent 2 hours obsessing over, and making three separate replies to a single post about gay bowel syndrome? Yep, I lost it alright and posted a big fat "laughing at you" emoji to show it.

Okay, quote one - just one - quote where I demonstrate anti-religious bigotry and actively support persecution of religion. I don't really know you, nor vice versa. I just lumped you in with the rest of the haters here. You're admittedly just a troll so I don't really care. Lets just call it your silence or inability to recognize blatant anti-religious bigotry about letting Christians die because they're just too stupid to live, while getting all hot an bothered over some silly comment about homophilly and justifying gay sex with my clone as merely being a form of auto-eroticism.

How none of that is remotely connected to anything you bitch about that is said by people here. Absolutely it is. And again, I'm talking about the non-violent anti-religious mindset prior to any militant soviet/atheist attack on religion and how the fostering of such a mindset lead to the atrocities 10, 30, 50 and 70 years down the line. For starters, there have been a number of people here that referred to religion as a drug, or the opiate of the people, or however they wanted to phrase that particular aspect of marxist philosophy, while others shared sentiments of an overreaching wall of separation between church and state reminiscent of leninist policy, tho not necessarily as severe. The latest one was how lawmakers sympathetic to legislation supported primarily by religious folks should be banned from congress, specifically those supporting anti-abortion legislation, eventho it's not really a religious issue - see secular pro-life for example. Others here have expressed how religion is a mental illness, how religious folks are delusional and how they can't wait for religion to die, or for religious people to die off - and this is all inline with soviet anti-religious propaganda where they promoted atheism and science over the superstition of religion and presented it as "being linked to psychological disorders and even criminal behavior. Textbooks for schoolchildren tried to evoke contempt for believers; pilgrims were depicted as morons, repulsive-looking alcoholics, syphilitics, plain cheaters and money-grubbing clergy. Believers were treated as harmful parasites that spread ignorance, filth and disease." They needed to spread this propaganda in order to sell their anti-religious campaign to the people - and if that didn't work they'd just say, well it's not because they're religious, they're just enemies of the state. And this is why wolfriverjoe's comments were so disturbing. I mean here we are experiencing a number of crises and levels of instability that many of us never experienced before, and the first thing he thinks to do is to abandon foundational principles, document certain Christians, deny them medical treatment and leave them for dead as if they're "enemies of the state," or in this case a threat to public health. Now was he really serious? I don't know, probably not, but he certainly sounded serious, or at least angry enough to support it. I mean he seems like a pretty reasonable guy, but like I said, history is full of well- intentioned people finding themselves in precarious situations and doing terrible things, or suddenly finding themselves at the point of no return and wondering how the hell it got this way - this is not what we wanted. and that in itself is very similar to both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It's really no different than the left's concerns about white nationalist hate groups and this so called secret police and what not. If there a was a total economic/civil collapse and white nationalist hate groups where the first nut-job fringe group to establish a reign of tyranny, conservatives would be partly responsible for that, even if they weren't complicit in it and fought absolutely to end it.

No, people like you will be responsible for history repeating itself due to your inability to recognize your anti-religious bigotry and it's chilling resemblance to that of LMA and other atheist goons prior to any militant religious persecution.

So much hatred in your posts. Yes, I hate bigotted atheists that are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people that were in their way of "progress." Obviously you don't feel the same. See how he doesn't address any of the content, but focuses on the one fuck word in that post. Typical troll, and admittedly so.

Yeah you just keep telling yourself that, you poor victimised majority. Here, in case you missed it the first time: https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/266879-this-is-just-funny/?do=findComment&comment=4876166 A few quotes from that link: "I mean you can't just expect me to let that shit go in a public forum even if I don't live in some shithole country and represent an oppressed minority - which apparently to you is compulsory of a valid grievance." "After the fucking Bolos took over, there was still a fierce debate over how the "opiate of religion" should be handled. Those on the right felt that that religion would just die naturally with the influence of science, education and anti-religious propaganda, especially after the elimination of religion in schools and the public square. Those on the left felt a more militant approach was necessary. As they grew weary of waiting for religion to die, the full might of the leftist's militant approach was realized." "When you see rhetoric that's reminiscent of humanity's notorious past, you call it out, just like I'm calling out the stereotypical broad-brushing hatred of religion by bigoted atheists of today - but apparently you guys see that type hatred as a means to an end, so you're OK with it." (obviously) And again: "It's not like the soviets suddenly woke up one day and said "hey, let's kill tens of millions of Christians along with tens of millions of other people that are standing in our way of "progress." But they obviously had a special kind of hard-on for eliminating religion, especially when they got tired of waiting for it to die off after the Russian civil war like they had hoped, which is why they amped-up production of strictly anti-religious newspapers and designated various groups like the Militant Godless and other atheist goons to promote atheism by any means necessary. “Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy. It is not a side effect, but the central pivot” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn " What part of that is so hard for you to understand? I mean seriously dude, wtf happened to you?

Phil and olof have said similar things to me a number of times already and I don't think I've entertained any of it. Phil should know better, and olof is just an admitted troll that gets off on it, so he's not worth much of my time. Fine, but that's no excuse to automatically default to a defensive/dismissive attitude against Clinton's possible complicity given his sleezebag history and ties to epstein, especially when rushing to judgement comes so easily to them when it's somebody on the "other side."

Well you could've fooled me they way some people here are flocking to defend him or dismiss it. With the accusations of rape, sexual assault and harassment against him, along with his gross abuse of power and taking advantage of a subordinate, and given his troubling ties with epstein - it shouldn't be that big of a stretch for liberals to connect, especially those here that are so quick to judge.

You bought up the homophobia. And before you try and find an even more offensive way to prove you're cool with it, please don't. Oh please, don't be such a prude. If you people weren't so quick to judge others just because they're not in lock-step with your idealistic daydreaming, then maybe I wouldn't feel the need to explain it to you so graphically.

Trivia Question: Who was the first black redskin? Your points are well received. Funny thing is - most people don't even know the history, tribute or feeling of respect by native Americans when Chief Two Guns White Calf's likeness was used. You know, the guy who was the profile on the Buffalo Nickel. Meh, they're just a bunch of uncle Squantos. Doesn't matter anyway, the liberal whiteskins say be offended - be very offended, or else!

Who are you writing in?