Really Sciency

Visit my other blog 'Really Sciency' looking at Climate Science and its portrayal, misrepresentation and denial in the media.

Friday, 11 February 2011

Anonymous prejudice


Anonymous contributor demonstrates thinly veiled prejudice. 

I’m surprised anyone reads this blog and honestly few people do. Its concept was just to record my ‘intellectual’ musings and mirror some of the contributions I’ve made to other sites. A journal would be just as good at this but there is the advantage that other contributors to those sites can engage with me more directly here and bypass any moderation and I will be able to link back to common themes.

I calculate that there have only been about three or four contributors to comments but it is impossible to know as comments can be anonymous, so all anonymous unsigned comments could be from one or several people.

However I believe that at least one anonymous commenter is responsible for most of these comments and they have perhaps unwittingly revealed a prejudice against non-believers by their comments even while they accuse me of racism because of a joke I posted.  I thought that this chap deserved their own post because of what their comments revealed about them and because they are one of my few ‘fans’.
Ann Coulter - Thou Shall not kill - except heathens.


Mr Anonymous (it could be Ms for all I know) made comments on a post about Ann Coulter anAmerican conservative Christian, social and political commentator, and columnist who frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public events.

Among many of her fundamentalist statements, she publicly said of Muslim countries like Iraq; "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Which I think is not only wrong but dangerous coming from a fairly influential public figure.

Mr Anonymous agreed but with some conditions it seems. To criticise her for that statement I must also criticise Christopher Hitchens' because he supported the invasion of Iraq, ‘kill it's leader and impose democracy’, and that the two positions could be equated or ‘judge people by the same standards’.


Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. While it is well known that Hitchins’ politics are American conservative in nature and he did support the invasion I’m pretty sure he did not publicly call for Sadam to be killed.

But to look at each case in point;

Scenario 1
Coulter is publically calling for the murder (unless she can justify that ‘thou shall not kill’ doesn’t apply to heathens), and the imposition of her Christian fundamental values on the rest of the populace.

Scenario 2
The invasion of Iraq was to remove a leader and leadership responsible for genocide (It was an Iraqi peoples court that imposed the death penalty), and bring about a secular type democracy.

But Mr Anonymous seems to wrongly believe that secularism equals atheism. Secularism means freedom of religion as much as freedom from religion. So in the second case there is no attempt at imposing belief.

So can the two really be equated? With explicitly implied murder and imposition to a faith present in the first and not in the second, I think not.

Christopher Hitchens - politically a conservative
 But none of this looks at my prejudice claim. The prejudice is because Mr Anonymous used Christopher Hitchin’s as an alter Coulter. Hitchens never called for the invasion of Iraq he just supported the political arguments made for the operation. But so did most other American conservatives and many liberals as well, who felt it was needed in the aftermath of 9/11. Probably much more than half of Americas 300 odd million people initially supported the invasion. This included many notable people, congress men, the press including editors and journalists, TV news and many, many more influential groups and individuals unsurprisingly including Ann Coulter herself.

So why single out Hitchens as the one who should be criticised for supporting the invasion of Iraq? What makes this writer and journalist different from most of the millions of others who thought the same? Did he order the troops in? The only thing that sets him apart from most of those other millions is that he is a notable atheist.

Mr Anonymous incorrectly associates atheism with secularism and puts Christopher Hitchens in the frame as someone who should be derided for it. Pure prejudice rising to the surface.

But hang on, if I’m saying Hitchens wasn’t responsible for calling for an invasion or sending in troops who ultimately is? If Coulter's call for a Christian invasion and a secular one can be equated who should be criticised along with her? Who said an invasion was necessary for protection? Who signed the order for a military operation and sent the troops in? It was George Bush and his administration.

Is Bush an atheist? No he is a Christian and as a fundamental one in his own way as much as Coulter is. Most if not all of the power in his administration, the Congress men and Senators all claim to be Christian.

So does Hitchens deserve to be criticised for his support of the invasion of Iraq? Since his politics conflict with mine, from my personal point of view I would criticise him on this point. But there is a queue, a very long queue in front of him, composed mostly of professed Christians with Ann Coulter near the top of that queue as well.

So any comments from Mr Anonymous might be interesting. Will he accept that murder and religious conversion can’t be equated with deposing and a secular democracy allowing freedom of religion? Will he accept that they only reason for singling out Christopher Hitchens from all the other supporters of invasion was because of his non-beliefs? Will he accept that if criticism is due there are a lot more prominent and deserving people than Hitchens and most of those are not Atheists? That some of those would have supported Ann Coulter as well?

Probably not.

57 comments:

  1. "So any comments from Mr Anonymous might be interesting. Will he accept that murder and religious conversion can’t be equated with deposing and a secular democracy allowing freedom of religion?"

    I am of the opinion that that the carefully selected and contextless quote of Anne Coulters supporting the invasion of other countries, the execution of their leaders and the imposition of Christianity on their population are of no difference morally to the comments of others supporting the invasion of other countries, the execution of their leaders and the imposition of secular democracy on their population.

    You will note that I have never referred to the imposition of atheism or that I have any misconception that secular democracy = atheism).


    "Will he accept that they only reason for singling out Christopher Hitchens from all the other supporters of invasion was because of his non-beliefs?"

    Yes. Because I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.

    So far you have proved my presumption to be correct.


    "Will he accept that if criticism is due there are a lot more prominent and deserving people than Hitchens"

    I have been equal in my condemnation of both Coulter's and Hitchens' position whilst you have been far more critical of Coulter.

    Who's the prejudiced one now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "But Mr Anonymous seems to wrongly believe that secularism equals atheism."

    Please provide a link to the comment where I indicate that I believe that secularism equals atheism.



    "Mr Anonymous incorrectly associates atheism with secularism"

    Please provide a link to the comment where I associate atheism with secularism.



    "Mr Anonymous incorrectly associates atheism with secularism and puts Christopher Hitchens in the frame as someone who should be derided for it."

    Please provide a link to the comment where I state that Christopher Hitchens should be derided for either his atheism or his secularism.




    Oh, don't tell me. You "forgot" to read back through my actual comments before levelling these accusations at me.

    Again.

    Doh!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This guys seems to have really hit a nerve with you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Please provide a link to the comment where I indicate that I believe that secularism equals atheism.”

    This is my personal conclusion to explain your erroneous argument, otherwise choosing a token atheist (Hitchens) makes little sense. If you really do know the difference between the two it makes your position even more ridiculous. It means you openly believe that secularism, which allows democratically elected representation and freedom of religion can be equated to an enforced theocracy brought about by the execution of a leadership. But since you seem to be claiming you do know the difference and you still think the two can be viewed on comparable terms I’m happy to accept that your beliefs are that twisted.

    “… carefully selected and contextless quote of Anne Coulters …”

    Here I would fully encourage you to find ANY context that will make Coulters quote seem less evil sounding that what it appears to be. I’m pretty sure any attempt to do this will make my day.

    “… the execution of their leaders and the imposition of secular democracy on their population. “

    But neither Hitchens, nor the Christians in power at the time said they would execute any leader. This is something you have just made up to make your absurd scenario more plausible and compatible to Coulters call to kill. It seems you need to believe Hitchens openly called for the execution of Iraq’s leadership - but it didn’t happen and can’t be equated to Coulters call for killing.

    “I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.”

    When in a hole stop digging – good advice. To start trying to explain reasons for you prejudice of Atheists only makes your hole deeper. It is already clear you chose him to represent Atheism and tell untruths about him calling for executions. I don’t expect you will apologise but you could at least educate yourself;

    Don't Hang Saddam, Why the dictator shouldn't get the death penalty, By Christopher Hitchens; http://www.slate.com/id/2152999/

    “I have been equal in my condemnation of both Coulter's and Hitchens' position whilst you have been far more critical of Coulter.”

    Indeed. Yet Hitchens never called for anyone to be killed. He never asked for the imposition of his beliefs on a countries populace, But Coulter did. He just supported the politics of the Christian lead Republican Party. He doesn’t deserve equal condemnation

    “Who's the prejudiced one now?”

    That would still be you by a long country mile.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "steve said...

    This guys seems to have really hit a nerve with you."

    Indeed it seems that I have. To be caught telling fibs (saying 'Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader')must be un-nerving for a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "This is my personal conclusion to explain your erroneous argument"

    What you mean is that, contrary to the assertion in your blog entry, I have never said that I believe that secularism equals atheism, I have not associated atheism with secularism and I have not stated that Christopher Hitchens should be derided for either his atheism or his secularism.

    Your apology for lying about me in your blog (again!) would be much appreciated.

    However I don't really hold out much hope of an apology since you haven't had the good grace to apologise for your previous lies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "To start trying to explain reasons for you prejudice of Atheists only makes your hole deeper."

    I have explained my reason for selecting Christopher Hitchens. It wasn't anything to do with prejudice on my part (since I harbour no prejudice against atheists) but to expose illogical tribalism, prejudice and hypocrisy on your part:
    ""Will he accept that they only reason for singling out Christopher Hitchens from all the other supporters of invasion was because of his non-beliefs?"

    Yes. Because I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.

    So far you have proved my presumption to be correct."

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Indeed. Yet Hitchens never called for anyone to be killed."

    Yes. It appears that I owe Christopher Hitchens an apology.

    Dear Christopher Hitchens, I admit that I was completely wrong when I suggested that you supported the execution of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein and I apologise for saying so. I recognise now that you merely supported and encouraged the military invasion of another country, on dubious legal grounds, that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3962969.stm

    ReplyDelete
  9. "He never asked for the imposition of his beliefs on a countries populace"

    He didn't ask for the imposition of a different religion on the people of Iraq but he did support the imposition of a different socio-political system in the form of secular democracy.


    "He doesn’t deserve equal condemnation"

    Yes, he does. I really don't see the difference between invading another country in order to impose a different socio-religious system and invading a country in order to impose a different socio-political system.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "“Who's the prejudiced one now?”

    That would still be you by a long country mile."


    I'm sorry but I have displayed no prejudice against atheists (as you claim).

    I have been equal in my denunciation of both the Christian Coulter and the Atheist Hitchens support of the military force in order to illegally impose different social systems on sovereign nations.

    You are the one who has asserted that Coulter alone should be demonised for her opinion simply because it relates to the imposition of Christianity rather than the imposition of secular democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If course you are prejudiced to atheists.

    You have admitted that the only reason you choose Hitchens was that he was an atheist and his 'tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice'(ignoring all the millions of Christians who thought in the same political terms as Hitchens). Prejudice could not be clearer!

    Once you selected you target atheist you went on to say that they deserved as much condemnation as someone calling for the killing of a countries leaders and converting the people to a religious faith against their will.

    And apparently still do now claiming a 'socio-political system' can be equated to a religion - like you can't have both.

    Prejudice, pure and simple.

    Will he accept that murder and religious conversion can’t be equated with deposing and a secular democracy allowing freedom of religion?

    Will he accept that they only reason for singling out Christopher Hitchens from all the other supporters of invasion was because of his non-beliefs?

    Will he accept that if criticism is due there are a lot more prominent and deserving people than Hitchens and most of those are not Atheists?

    That some of those would have supported Ann Coulter as well?

    that would be a no then.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "You have admitted that the only reason you choose Hitchens was that he was an atheist and his 'tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice'"


    You silly boy!

    You need to read what I wrote properly:
    "I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.

    So far you have proved my presumption to be correct"

    Did you get that: "tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part".

    On YOUR part.

    Christopher Hitchens was only chosen as an example to expose your prejudice and tribalism on the presumption that you would be less scathing towards him, because he is an atheist, despite disagreeing with his stance over the invasion of Iraq, than you would be of Ann Coulter the Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Once you selected you target atheist you went on to say that they deserved as much condemnation as someone calling for the killing of a countries leaders and converting the people to a religious faith against their will. "

    Yes. I believe that his support of the military invasion of Iraq in order to impose secular democracy on that country is equally deserving of condemnation as Ann Coulters alleged quote (you are yet to provide a direct source) that the West should invade other countries and impose Christianity upon them.

    Just in case you missed it: "equally deserving of condemnation".

    I do not say that Hitchens deserves greater condemnation than Coulter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "And apparently still do now claiming a 'socio-political system' can be equated to a religion - like you can't have both."

    Doh!

    I haven't said that you can't have both.


    What I have said is that Hitchens support for the invasion of Iraq in order to impose cultural change on that country is equally deserving of condemnation as Coulter's (alleged) comments regarding the hypothetical invasion of countries in order to impose a different cultural change.

    I could understand your dogged support of Hitchens if you believed, like him, that the invasion of Iraq was morally correct but you have said that you disagree with him.

    Therefore I can only surmise that the differencve in your attitude to these two individuals is because one is a Christian and the other is an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Will he accept that murder and religious conversion can’t be equated with deposing and a secular democracy allowing freedom of religion?"

    Errr, no. Because they are both the enforced imposition of a cultural change on sovereign nations by foreign powers.




    "Will he accept that they only reason for singling out Christopher Hitchens from all the other supporters of invasion was because of his non-beliefs?"

    Duh!

    I already have here:
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297439584172#c4629068574716089384
    "Yes. Because I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.

    So far you have proved my presumption to be correct."

    Don't tell me. You "forgot" to read back through my previous comments.


    Again.


    Doh!

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Will he accept that if criticism is due there are a lot more prominent and deserving people than Hitchens and most of those are not Atheists?"


    I have already addressed that point here:
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297439584172#c4629068574716089384

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just in case you "forgot" to read back to this reply:

    ""This is my personal conclusion to explain your erroneous argument"

    What you mean is that, contrary to the assertion in your blog entry, I have never said that I believe that secularism equals atheism, I have not associated atheism with secularism and I have not stated that Christopher Hitchens should be derided for either his atheism or his secularism.

    Your apology for lying about me in your blog (again!) would be much appreciated.

    However I don't really hold out much hope of an apology since you haven't had the good grace to apologise for your previous lies."

    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297716228789#c2286866378220705482



    I'm still waiting.



    No big surprise there then.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why are you in denial?

    You chose Hitchens because and only because he was an atheist. It, and his fame was the only thing that set him apart from the millions of other similarly political motivated people, most of whom are professed Christians. His atheism has no bearing whatsoever on his political thinking.

    This is the very definition of prejudice. There is no difference from selecting an atheist in this case or a black man since neither things about these people would set their opinions apart from millions of others who were not atheist or black.

    Why not admit you picked an atheist even though that had no bearing? Why not accept this was prejudice?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "You chose Hitchens because and only because he was an atheist."

    "Yes. Because I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.

    So far you have proved my presumption to be correct."
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297439584172#c4629068574716089384


    I can't believe that I've had to repeat that for you again.

    Were you in the slow reading class at school?




    "Why not accept this was prejudice?"

    "I have explained my reason for selecting Christopher Hitchens. It wasn't anything to do with prejudice on my part (since I harbour no prejudice against atheists) but to expose illogical tribalism, prejudice and hypocrisy on your part"
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297716511677#c601781714347378613

    If you have any friends please could you ask one of them to explain this to you.

    Slowly.

    It really is VERY simple.

    A bit like yourself (obviously).

    ReplyDelete
  20. "This is the very definition of prejudice. There is no difference from selecting an atheist in this case or a black man since neither things about these people would set their opinions apart from millions of others who were not atheist or black."

    No, prejudice (in this case specifically racial prejudice or racism) is telling jokes about black people being illegitimate, arabs being violent, Mexicans being thieves, Jews being miserly, etc, such as this one:
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. Alleging that I'm a racist, even if true, does not justify you being prejudiced.

    It is wholly prejudiced to chose someone as an example if a minority to condemn them equally with others, when any deserved condemnation does not rely on them being in a minority.

    This is the very definition of prejudice, please stop denying it or trying to excuse it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The only person I have pre-judged is you:

    "I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.

    So far you have proved my presumption to be correct."


    I pre-judged what your reaction would be to the juxtaposition of Hitchens support for the invasion of Iraq to Ann Coulter's comment based on the anti-Christian prejudice that you have displayed previously in your blog.

    So far you have proved that judgement to be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "It is wholly prejudiced to chose someone as an example if a minority to condemn them equally with others, when any deserved condemnation does not rely on them being in a minority."

    I have not condemned Christopher Hitchens for being "part of a minority" you numpty.

    All I have said is that his support for the foreign military invasion of Iraq and the imposition of secular democracy on it's population is comparable to the quote that you have given from Ann Coulter and should be treated similarly by any fair-minded individual.

    I have explained my reason for this selction: to expose the fact that you are not fair-minded with regard to this. On the contrary you are entirely prejudiced against Christians since you seek to justify treating the Christian Ann Coulters comment differently from comparable comments from the Atheist Christopher Hitchens.

    Please, if you have a friend with greater powers of basic comprehension than you, get them to explain this to you so that I don't have to keep banging my head against the brick wall of your blind assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "This is the very definition of prejudice"


    "No, prejudice (in this case specifically racial prejudice or racism) is telling jokes about black people being illegitimate, arabs being violent, Mexicans being thieves, Jews being miserly, etc, such as this one:
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html"
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297804371640#c4137790980904649042

    ReplyDelete
  25. Still in denial I see.

    No problem for me because the more times you try to justify your prejudice the more you come across as a little prejudiced bigot, so I am more than happy to outline your prejudice for all to see again and again and again.

    There were so many others you could have chosen that 'support for the foreign military invasion of Iraq and the imposition of secular democracy on it's population' and the majority of these were not atheists. Many had more direct involvement in what happened.

    You chose a notable atheist simply because he was an atheist. His atheism has no bearing on the point you tried to make. You could just as easily choose a notable Jew, Muslim or Black person to try and make the same point but you didn't because you feel certain I'm neither a Jew, Muslim or Black person so you singled out an atheist.

    Prejudice and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "You chose a notable atheist simply because he was an atheist."

    Yes. And I have explained, multiple times, why I specifically selected that individual.

    It wasn't because I am prejudiced against atheists. It wasn't to suggest that his views represented all atheists. It wasn't to suggest that his opinion, as an atheist, was more repugnant than that of a Christian.

    I chose Christopher Hitchens as an example because: "I presumed that due to tribalism and anti-Christian prejudice on your part you would unlikely to condemn Christopher Hitchens for his support of the invasion of another country, the execution of it's leader with the same vehemence that you condemn Ann Coulter.

    So far you have proved my presumption to be correct"


    Are you really too thick to understand this or are you just feigning incomprehension in order to cover up your prejudice towards Christians with bluster?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I know you have explained why you chose an atheist - endlessly so - but no amount of explaining justifies your Prejudice. Do you think it ever could?

    It was because you were and are Prejudiced against atheists - that was the reason you choose one over anyone else I suggested. That is why you ignored Coulters call for killing and wrongly suggested Hitchens as an atheist did something similar when you could have chose thousands of others.

    Accusing me of anti-Christian Prejudice to try to cover it up is beyond the pale. I am anti-fundamental Christian when their beliefs and espoused views are dangerous - this is not prejudice. So are you or didn't you mean it when you condemned Coulter?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "but no amount of explaining justifies your Prejudice"

    Duh!

    That's because I have no prejudice to explain or justify.

    I didn't select Christopher Hitchens out of any prejudice against him as an atheist (or any other prejudice against him).

    I selected him to expose your tribalism and prejudice against Christians and you were happy to oblige.

    ROFLMAO!


    I honestly thought that you were feigning an inability to comprehend what I have told you but it is becoming abundantly clear that you really are thicker than a whale sandwich, aren't you.


    "So are you or didn't you mean it when you condemned Coulter"

    I disagree with the quote-mined comment of Coulters. Equally I disagree with Hitchens prolonged and repeated support for the invasion of Iraq. I disagree with them because I do not share the sentiments expressed by them, not because of any prejudice towards either of them.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why do you keep digging and digging?

    I know you like to justify what you said and you are in denial that it is pure prejudice but at least stop and look at what you keep writing.

    Accusing atheists of being tribalistic and claiming counter prejudice is as bigoted as anything you have come up with so far.

    So you are saying you would chose a notable black person to expose something about another black person and think this is an acceptable thing to do? Or do you just save this logic for atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Accusing atheists of being tribalistic and claiming counter prejudice is as bigoted as anything you have come up with so far."

    Please provide a link to the comment where I have accused "atheists" of being tribalistic and prejudiced.

    (Once again I won't hold my breath waiting for you to produce the evidence as I would die of asphyxiation if your past performance in producing evidence of things that you claim that I have said is anything to go by).

    I have accused YOU of tribalism and prejudice you idiot! No one else.

    Do you represent ALL atheists now?

    Is a observation about your flaws an attack on ALL atheists?

    (What a maroon!)

    ReplyDelete
  31. "So you are saying you would chose a notable black person to expose something about another black person and think this is an acceptable thing to do?"

    If a white person was criticising a black person(or a green person was criticising a purple person for that matter) and I could expose that these comments were motivated by prejudice on their part because they refused to be as critical of a white person making similar remarks than I believe that it would be legitimate to do so.

    If I saw someone making a joke on line that pandered to a negative racial steroetype against black people (such as them "not knowing who their fathers are") then I would most definately stand up against it.

    Do you know anyone who tells those sorts of jokes on the internet?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Just in case you "forgot" to read back to this reply:

    ""This is my personal conclusion to explain your erroneous argument"

    What you mean is that, contrary to the assertion in your blog entry, I have never said that I believe that secularism equals atheism, I have not associated atheism with secularism and I have not stated that Christopher Hitchens should be derided for either his atheism or his secularism.

    Your apology for lying about me in your blog (again!) would be much appreciated.

    However I don't really hold out much hope of an apology since you haven't had the good grace to apologise for your previous lies."

    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297716228789#c2286866378220705482



    I'm still waiting.


    And I'm still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "you are in denial that it is pure prejudice"

    I think that if anyone is in denial it is you.

    You keep repeating your flawed assertion that I am prejudiced against atheists because I chose an atheist as a counterpoint to the Christian example that you chose whilst steadfastly refusing to engage with the logical and unprejudiced reason that I have given for making that particular selection.


    Please note: Before you accuse me of saying something that I haven't (again) I have NOT said that atheists are in denial, just YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I chose an atheist as a counterpoint to the Christian example that you chose"

    I know why you think you choose an atheist, but it can't be a counterpoint if atheism has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on your example.

    It is true what they say, true bigots can never see themselves for what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Do you represent ALL atheists now?"

    Does Hitchens?

    So explain why you chose to accuse me of me tribalism and prejudice? What tribe do you think I'm a member of if not atheists?

    More prejudice showing through, the question now is if you are telling the truth and it isn't atheists, what 'tribe' are you really being prejudice against?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I know why you think you choose an atheist"



    You should do by now, I have repeated it enough times now.

    "I didn't select Christopher Hitchens out of any prejudice against him as an atheist (or any other prejudice against him).

    I selected him to expose your tribalism and prejudice against Christians and you were happy to oblige"

    ReplyDelete
  37. "It is true what they say, true bigots can never see themselves for what they are. "

    Hence why you continue to defend this racist joke: http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html

    ReplyDelete
  38. ""Do you represent ALL atheists now?"

    Does Hitchens?"


    Have I said that he does?

    No.

    On the contrary, I have stated quite openly: "I have explained, multiple times, why I specifically selected that individual.

    It wasn't because I am prejudiced against atheists. It wasn't to suggest that his views represented all atheists. It wasn't to suggest that his opinion, as an atheist, was more repugnant than that of a Christian."
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297879729767#c3074745120068140124


    "What tribe do you think I'm a member of if not atheists?"

    So you DO think that you represent ALL atheists and that a criticism of YOU is a criticism of ALL atheists then!

    What a narcisisstic muppet you are!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "So explain why you chose to accuse me of me tribalism and prejudice?"

    Duh!

    Because you exhibit tribalistic behaviour towards your fellow atheists and prejudice towards Christians in your refusal to criticise atheists (Christopher Hitchens being a case in point) to the same degree as Christians for making similar comments with regard the foreign military invasion of sovereign nations for the purposes of effecting cultural change.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lies that Lazarus has told about me in the course of the Coulter / hitchens discussion:

    1. That Ann Coulter is my "heroine": http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/christian-taliban.html?showComment=1297883405123#c4741407472795723533

    2. That I "believe that secularism equals atheism": http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html

    3. That I "associate atheism with secularism": http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html

    4. That I believe that Christopher Hitchens "should be derided" for his atheism and his seculaism: http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html

    5. That I have said that you can't have both a both a socio-political system and a religion in a society: http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297794493963#c5536187342985635284

    6. That I have condemned Christopher Hitchens simply for "being in a minority": http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297805751882#c3092013675080086019

    7. That I have accused "atheists of being tribalistic": http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/02/anonymous-prejudice.html?showComment=1297883913661#c9119897859626911071


    With so many lies why would anyone accept as true his assertion that my selection of Chris Hitchens to expose his own tribalism and prejudice is indicative of prejudice against atheists on my part?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Looks like they've got a job for you Laz:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok

    ReplyDelete
  42. You selected Hitchens because he was an atheist, if it was some master plan to expose tribalism on my part then my tribe can only be atheist in your context. This is still prejudiced against atheist and more specifically me personally as a non believer.

    Prejudiced is still prejudiced no mater how you try to dress it up.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "You selected Hitchens because he was an atheist"

    Yes, yes and thrice yes.

    Because had a selected another Christian you would simply have been as critical of their comments as you are of Ann Coulters.

    Hence I had to select a respected atheist in order to expose how you would treat their comments differently from those of a Christian and reveal your tribalism with regards to your fellow atheists and your prejudice against Christians.

    There is no prejudice required on my part, merely a desire to expose your hypocrisy.

    Even a person of severly limited intelligence should be able to comprehend this and yet you still bang on with your "you chose an atheist therefore you're prejudiced" schtick!


    "it was some master plan to expose tribalism on my part then my tribe can only be atheist in your context"

    Yes.


    "This is still prejudiced against atheist"

    No. I wouldn't have taken this course of action against an atheist who wasn't as blindly tribal and prejudiced as you clearly are because it wouldn't have been necessary.


    "specifically me personally as a non believer"

    No. I didn't take this course of action solely because you are an "unbeliever" but because you are prejudiced against Christians and you presented me with an opportunity to expose this prejudice.


    "Prejudiced is still prejudiced no mater how you try to dress it up."

    I couldn't agree more:
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Because had a selected another Christian you would simply have been as critical of their comments as you are of Ann Coulters."

    Untrue because I'm not critical of Coulter for what she is but for what she said in relation to what she claims to be. Her professed Christianity has a direct bearing on what she said people should do.

    Hitchens atheism has no bearing WHATSOEVER on supporting his governments actions. You are just being prejudiced.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Hitchens atheism has no bearing WHATSOEVER on supporting his governments actions."

    EXACTLY!

    Give the boy a coconut!

    That is why your less critical treatment of his comments compared to those of Ann Coulters is proof of your tribalism towards your fellow atheists and prejudice against Christians.

    You have no reason, on the basis of what was actually said, to be any less condemnatory of Hitchens stance than Coulter's stance.

    Yet you are less condemnatory.

    The obvious reason: you treat comments made by atheists more favourably than similar comments made by Christians for the sole reason that you feel a kind of tribal allegiance to your fellow atheists and don't wish to be seen to be critical towards them but because of your prejudice towards Christians you are prepared to treat their comments far more severely.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "That is why your less critical treatment of his comments compared to those of Ann Coulters is proof of your tribalism towards your fellow atheists and prejudice against Christians."

    Untrue, my less critical treatment is because he does not advocate killing and forced religious conversion and his position is totally unremarkable. One does not equal the other on any scale. What it it about this that you continually fail to grasp?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Untrue, my less critical treatment is because he does not advocate killing"

    But he did support the invasion of Iraq. Are you suggesting that Hitchens believed that this war could be prosecuted without any killing?



    "forced religious conversion"

    No, he supported the enforced conversion by foreign powers of a sovereign nation to secular democracy.

    Where's the big difference?



    "One does not equal the other on any scale."

    The invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different political system upon it is not comparable to the invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different religious system upon it how exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mr. Anonymous said;
    "Where's the big difference?"

    One was called for by a media personality against all sensible politics.
    One was the favoured option by the main political party and sold to it's people as a necessary evil to protect their own security.

    One is a theocracy where people have no choice.
    One is a democracy where people choose their own leader.

    One is brought about by the murder of a countries leaders.
    One is deposing the leaders with the peoples support.

    Perhaps you are right and there is little difference between the two, then again perhaps you are just plain stupid.

    I'll leave that for others to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I just realised,

    One was a call to invade multiple countries to kill and convert.
    One was the invasion of a single country for self protection (as sold by the US government to its people).

    ReplyDelete
  50. One is about the invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different political system upon it.

    The other is about the invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different religious system upon it.


    Other than one being a change of religious system and the other a change of political system how are they fundamentally different?

    ReplyDelete
  51. So according to you screwed up logic all military actions, whether the Crusades, Germany's invasion of Poland, Peace keeping in Kosovo, Liberation of Europe, the Falklands, Genghis sweeping across the steps have no fundamental differences.

    I humbly disagree with such an ignorant view.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "So according to you screwed up logic all military actions, whether the Crusades, Germany's invasion of Poland, Peace keeping in Kosovo, Liberation of Europe, the Falklands, Genghis sweeping across the steps have no fundamental differences."

    I don't believe that I have said anything of the sort.

    If I have you will be able to demonstrate by providing a quote and a link, won't you?

    Once again, I won't hold by breath, my lung capacity is nowhere near adequate enough.


    Of course there are moral differences between different military actions.

    Sending in forces to protect poorly defended civilians from attack by heavily armed agressors (even if the agressors are their fellow countrymen) is very different from invading a country in order to gain control of it's substantial natural resources.

    But I can see little difference, morally, between what Ann Coulter suggested and the invasion of Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "I don't believe that I have said anything of the sort."

    Well you did, you said;
    "One is about the invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different political system upon it.

    The other is about the invasion of a sovereign nation by foreign powers in order to impose a different religious system upon it."

    The wars mentioned above all fit into your definitions of invasion for either a different political system or religious one.

    "But I can see little difference, morally, between what Ann Coulter suggested and the invasion of Iraq."

    Shameful that you can't see the difference between murder and deposing. Between a theocracy where people have no choice and a a democracy where people choose their own leader. Between a right wing extremist and someone following the countries main political view. Between a call to invade multiple countries to kill and convert and one to invade of a single country for self protection

    That says more about you skewed sense of morality than it does about the two entirely different situations.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The wars mentioned above all fit into your definitions of invasion for either a different political system or religious one."
    Really. Perhaps you could point which of the wars that you reference were solely for the purpose of changing the political system in the country invaded and not for the primary purposes of self-defence, counter-aggression or defence of civilian populations?


    "Between a call to invade multiple countries"
    Which specific countries did Coulter say should be invaded?
    "to kill"
    Which specific individuals did Coulter say should be killed?
    "and convert"
    Which specific countries did Coulter say should be converted?


    "to invade of a single country for self protection"
    For which specific nation was the invasion of Iraq a measure of "self protection"?



    I can see little difference morally between supporting the military invasion by foreign powers of a sovereign nation for the purposes of imposing a change of religious system and supporting the military invasion by foreign powers of a sovereign nation for the purposes of imposing a change of political system.

    So far you have failed to outline the fundamental moral difference between the two either.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Really. Perhaps you could point which of the wars that you reference were solely for the purpose of changing the political system in the country invaded and not for the primary purposes of self-defence, counter-aggression or defence of civilian populations?"

    Why? The Iraqi invasion was not sold on such a premise.

    In any case all this makes little difference to the title post. You are prejudiced against atheists and have demonstrated it clearly just short of actually using the term.

    You admit to singling out an atheist to represent my 'tribe'. If I were a Jew or black your reasoning would be just as applicable and you would have singled out a prominent Jew or African American to represent my 'tribe'.

    I'll let others decide if this is bigoted prejudice for themselves as you clearly see nothing wrong in tagging people into groups for such discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete