Confession

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A point that would only hold if:

1) atheists tried to get their own channel
2) something other than the market blocked the attempt

Well, then I'm sure that every person on those 10 religious channels believe they are participating in the only channel that is not atheist and sinful.

And there's no more a reason for an atheist channel than there is for a christian channel. But see, contrary to what most people of a christian persuasion seem to think, atheism doesn't consume the atheist in the same way christianity does the christian. But they think it does, because they don't understand the concept of no religion.

Wide band seems to work pretty well. It encompasses everyone. 😎

What would an atheist channel entail? Someone preaching on the proof that these is no God? I don't think many people would tune in, unless of course the guy preaching used some funny gimmick that we often see with the religious TV personalities. Like that TV preacher who randomly starts babbling in gibberish and claims "the Lord" is in him. Always worth a laugh.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, then I'm sure that every person on those 10 religious channels believe they are participating in the only channel that is not atheist and sinful.

Nice use of reason and thought. Imagine if someone jumped to conclusions based on nothing but fear hatred and ignorance. Oh, wait lulz.

Originally posted by Devil King
And there's no more a reason for an atheist channel than there is for a christian channel. But see, contrary to what most people of a christian persuasion seem to think, atheism doesn't consume the atheist in the same way christianity does the christian. But they think it does, because they don't understand the concept of no religion.

Then there's no need or desire for an atheist channel. Stop being a whiny little bitch.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A point that would only hold if:

1) atheists tried to get their own channel
2) something other than the market blocked the attempt

it holds just fine

the argument wasn't that atheists are persecuted (at least not what I read of it) but rather that Christians are not.

Having the finances and market share to have 10 channels (at least half a dozen where I am from) is something I think is very difficult to equate with persecution.

probably not good to jump on ship with an argument that boils down to "When people don't believe what I do and say something to the effect of why they are persecuting my belief".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And all the ragheads too, right? I mean if were going to presecute one group for the actions of a few it might as well go all around.

"ragheads" normally don't have the political or financial clout to enact that type of change, and by in large, American Muslims are happy with freedom of speech.

During the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, many American publications refused to publish the pictures of Mohammed, and were rightly criticized (though admittedly, the critics were in the minority, many citing the violence in Pakistan rather than religious sensitivities. Possibly take it as a symbol of pride that people know Christians aren't psychopaths and can take a good ribbing now and then).

Originally posted by inimalist
probably not good to jump on ship with an argument that boils down to "When people don't believe what I do and say something to the effect of why they are persecuting my belief".

Of course that's a good argument against any beliefs when people are allowed to generalize the entire population

Originally posted by inimalist
"ragheads" normally don't have the political or financial clout to enact that type of change, and by in large, American Muslims are happy with freedom of speech.

Enacting change was not mentioned.

I was simply pointing out that while people are happy to assume that "all Christians" follow a certain view point people tend to go on a PC bender if someone makes an equivalent claim about other faiths.

Originally posted by inimalist
Possibly take it as a symbol of pride that people know Christians aren't psychopaths and can take a good ribbing now and then.

I'll remember that philosophy the next time I nail a flaming cross in a black guy's yard.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course that's a good argument against any beliefs when people are allowed to generalize the entire population

I wasn't generalizing anything. You seem to be agreeing that someone on television voicing an opinion against Christianity or in some way derogatory of Christian dogma constitutes persecution.

Or you are saying that the mainstream media isn't nuanced in its portrayal of the diversity in Christian belief?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Enacting change was not mentioned.

I was simply pointing out that while people are happy to assume that "all Christians" follow a certain view point people tend to go on a PC bender if someone makes an equivalent claim about other faiths.

I don't necessarily agree with this. On this forum, at the very least, the prophet of Islam is called a pedophile quite often.

But, lets be honest, Christians are in many ways among the only groups to complain in society because they are privileged enough to do so. The Jews have the anti-defamation league, which is a huge organization, Christians have many similar organizations. They enjoy the prosperity to set up groups to organize campaigns to institute their agenda into media and government. You cannot do this as effectively if you are a minority. Yes, there are very vocal groups that support minorities, and the media loves sensationalism, but feminists, humanitarian groups and many other groups are highly critical of Islam as well as defending minorities from majority persecution.

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about? In the 80s an artist took a picture of a crucifix in a bottle of urine and almost had all federal arts funding in America shut down. Christians are very active in making sure they are depicted well in the media.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll remember that philosophy the next time I nail a flaming cross in a black guy's yard.

that example proves my point though

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nice use of reason and thought. Imagine if someone jumped to conclusions based on nothing but fear hatred and ignorance. Oh, wait lulz.

Then there's no need or desire for an atheist channel. Stop being a whiny little bitch.

Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't understand it. But, like most, you've translated that fear of being wrong or that you're wasting your time into an overpowering sense of certainty and disgust with everyone who disagrees with you.

There is no logic in this argument. That's been my position all along. Well, that and folks like yourself. There's no need for an atheist channel. There's no need for Total Christ Television, either.

I can't believe you put that much effort into calling me a b*tch. You've really got to be committed to an insult to type out that many brackets.

Originally posted by Devil King
Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't understand it. But, like most, you've translated that fear of being wrong or that you're wasting your time into an overpowering sense of certainty and disgust with everyone who disagrees with you.

There is no logic in this argument. That's been my position all along. Well, that and folks like yourself. There's no need for an atheist channel. There's no need for Total Christ Television, either.

I can't believe you put that much effort into calling me a b*tch. You've really got to be committed to an insult to type out that many brackets.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
the way he acts towards other people is rediculus. a single disagreement and he procedes to try to rip them apart.

And what's up with that name. It doesn't even make sense, lulz.

Originally posted by Devil King
Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't understand it. But, like most, you've translated that fear of being wrong or that you're wasting your time into an overpowering sense of certainty and disgust with everyone who disagrees with you.

I only react with disgust to people who's actions disgust me. While you seem content to be disgusted by any mention of religion and then quickly turn that same spittle on individuals who follow it without apparent regard for any other factors.

Originally posted by Devil King
There is no logic in this argument. That's been my position all along. Well, that and folks like yourself.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. What are those sentences trying to say?

Originally posted by Devil King
There's no need for an atheist channel. There's no need for Total Christ Television, either.

Of course not. But the desire clearly exists which is far more important in reality. Nobody needs any television channel so we only have the ones that the market can support due to what people want. Your welcome to go sulk that people want to hear drivel you disagree with rather than drivel you agree with.

Originally posted by Devil King
I can't believe you put that much effort into calling me a b*tch. You've really got to be committed to an insult to type out that many brackets.

I've got a Notepad document full of useful things like that. Don't go thinking you're so special unless it helps you get through the day.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, then I'm sure that every person on those 10 religious channels believe they are participating in the only channel that is not atheist and sinful.

And there's no more a reason for an atheist channel than there is for a christian channel. But see, contrary to what most people of a christian persuasion seem to think, atheism doesn't consume the atheist in the same way christianity does the christian. But they think it does, because they don't understand the concept of no religion.

Is there a "demand" for any kind of channel? Do we really need 2/3 of the channels that are out there? Was there really a "demand" for E! and all those other pointless channels out there? It's a small point of your argument, but just because a type of programming is not in demand doesn't mean people don't have the right to broadcast it. Christians have a right to express their faith and non-Christians (and even some Christians) have the right to not watch. Hence the beauty of freedom of religious expression.

That said, what do you mean by "consume?" I have met a person or two that I would call a "zealot," but faiths are supposed to have heavy influence on a person's life. If Christianity "consumes" a Christian, then Islam "consumes" a Muslim and so on. That's not something that is unique to Christianity, so it's once again you deciding to pick on one particular religion rather than all of them. Everyone is consumed by something, rather it is religion or not. Some people live for their jobs, live for music they make, etc. It's called passion and when religion is involved, it's called inspiration. If the Christian religion consumes someone to the point where they feel it necessary to, I don't know, be a good neighbor, be more charitable, and pray for others, then that certainly is better than being consumed by bitterness and self-righteousness.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I don't know, be a good neighbor, be more charitable, and pray for others, then that certainly is better than being consumed by bitterness and self-righteousness.

this line made me lulz for reals

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I only react with disgust to people who's actions disgust me. While you seem content to be disgusted by any mention of religion and then quickly turn that same spittle on individuals who follow it without apparent regard for any other factors.

Oh, I have no doubt I disgust you. That's the knee jerk reaction of most people with a self-imposed christian perspective. And you'll rarely find me disgusted with people of faith or members of one religion over another, until they feel the need to tell me that unless I believe what they believe and the way they believe it, that I am somehow persecuting them. All I ask is that they take a moment and realize that their rights are not more important than mine, simply by virtue of their faith in Jesus. But that's not what they do. They think they have some secret insight that makes their outrage justifiable. Well, they don't and it's not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. What are those sentences trying to say?

The basis of this argument is that the poor christian majority is being beaten up on by a godless, heathen society that holds them down at the point of a spear and forces them to feel bad at the end of a loaded politically correct gun barrel. Well, that's just ****ing stupid. I don't see atheists marching and screaming outside the funeral of a dead soldier, carrying vulgar, hateful signs. I don't see an atheist channel. I don't see the rights of christians being up for political debate that filters it's way down to the dinner tables and pulpits of ordinary people. Why? Because the argument is ridicuous and people of no specific organized faith or no faith at all, aren't talking about their own rights as a matter of "superior rights", they're talking about them as equal rights. Christians who take these things to an extreme are doing just the opposite. Their descision to impose certain faith-based parameters on their own lives lends them the supposed credence to display outrage at anyone else who does not. To you or Will, this is bashing christians. You people just don't get it: it has nothing to do with getting rid of Christianity or bashing it; it has everything to do with getting them to understand they aren't the only ones with rights. You guys think it's politically correct to bash christians, but not gays or muslims or jews. But I don't see a country where every one is supposed to enjoy equal rights debating your lives in regards to legality.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course not. But the desire clearly exists which is far more important in reality. Nobody needs any television channel so we only have the ones that the market can support due to what people want. Your welcome to go sulk that people want to hear drivel you disagree with rather than drivel you agree with.

Nope, the desire is not there. These channels are funded by their viewers, not the market. It's a lot like those fundraising telethons for Public Television. The difference is that the telethon season never ends. If you actually watch those channels, which I do sometimes, they spend half their time telling the viewer that if they don't send money, as often as they can, then their channel will go away and they won't be able to broadcast in the third world countries that are the only remaining market for growth in their religon. Even if atheism became a majority, there would be no need for a channel and no atheist would watch it, because atheism is not a religion. And then there is the matter of channels that broadcast certain religious programs on Sunday, who often do so at a loss of viewers and revenue while those shows are being broadcast. I'm not sulking because these channels exist. (I know you don't understand this. It was the reason for the example of the channels in the first place) People can watch whatever they want. I simply don't think there would be such a multitude of these channels if you poor christians were so persecuted. 🙁

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've got a Notepad document full of useful things like that. Don't go thinking you're so special unless it helps you get through the day.

Oh, wow. I'm not sure if that's more sad or not. I don't know that I've ever met anyone with an internet forum trolling kit he keeps on his desktop. I didn't assume I was special to you, I said you have to really be committed to an insult to do that much typing for a single word to get it through the filter.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Is there a "demand" for any kind of channel? Do we really need 2/3 of the channels that are out there? Was there really a "demand" for E! and all those other pointless channels out there? It's a small point of your argument, but just because a type of programming is not in demand doesn't mean people don't have the right to broadcast it. Christians have a right to express their faith and non-Christians (and even some Christians) have the right to not watch. Hence the beauty of freedom of religious expression.

Freedom of Religious expression? In a country that persecutes and harasses Christians? How could it be?

Originally posted by willofthewisp
That said, what do you mean by "consume?" I have met a person or two that I would call a "zealot," but faiths are supposed to have heavy influence on a person's life. If Christianity "consumes" a Christian, then Islam "consumes" a Muslim and so on. That's not something that is unique to Christianity, so it's once again you deciding to pick on one particular religion rather than all of them. Everyone is consumed by something, rather it is religion or not. Some people live for their jobs, live for music they make, etc. It's called passion and when religion is involved, it's called inspiration. If the Christian religion consumes someone to the point where they feel it necessary to, I don't know, be a good neighbor, be more charitable, and pray for others, then that certainly is better than being consumed by bitterness and self-righteousness.

Ah, but there's a difference between a positive and an ultimately negative influence. If your religion (because that's what this is about, religion, not faith) is a source of strength, then that's fine. But if it becomes your crutch to further indifference, intolerance and bigotry, then it hasn't had the positive impact on your life it was meant to have.

I think all religions are goofy and have always said as much in this forum. But, it was you that said christians in the US are so picked on and degraded and harassed and persecuted. So it was you that chose christianity to be the focus of this discussion, not me.

I have no use for a quiet and polite neighbour who will walk into a voting booth with a smile on their face and cast a ballot to deny me the same rights they have.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nice use of reason and thought. Imagine if someone jumped to conclusions based on nothing but fear hatred and ignorance. Oh, wait lulz.

Then there's no need or desire for an atheist channel. Stop being a whiny little bitch.

Originally posted by Devil King
Freedom of Religious expression? In a country that persecutes and harasses Christians? How could it be?

Ah, but there's a difference between a positive and an ultimately negative influence. If your religion (because that's what this is about, religion, not faith) is a source of strength, then that's fine. But if it becomes your crutch to further indifference, intolerance and bigotry, then it hasn't had the positive impact on your life it was meant to have.

I think all religions are goofy and have always said as much in this forum. But, it was you that said christians in the US are so picked on and degraded and harassed and persecuted. So it was you that chose christianity to be the focus of this discussion, not me.

I have no use for a quiet and polite neighbour who will walk into a voting booth with a smile on their face and cast a ballot to deny me the same rights they have.

Again, you think persecution only implies physical harm. You are overlooking all the ridicule and stereotyping that goes on. Christians are only portrayed as well-meaning idiots or aggressive bigots. Look at it the way the AMC Network is showcasing the Asian population in film. When the participants are interviewed, they show resentment at the way Asians are portrayed in films and view it as persecution in the form of reinforcing stereotypes. But that doesn't mean they have all concluded the film industry evil or purposely intolerant. They just acknowledge there is a long way to go before equality and respect become a reality.

As for your last sentence, no one is talking about stripping away your rights through voting, so I, for one, fail to see what you're trying to say there. No one has suggested or encouraged voting for some kind of policy that prohibits you from speaking your mind. I just find it ridiculous that some prejudiced people here refer to everyone else that way. Pot's calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Again, you think persecution only implies physical harm. You are overlooking all the ridicule and stereotyping that goes on. Christians are only portrayed as well-meaning idiots or aggressive bigots. Look at it the way the AMC Network is showcasing the Asian population in film. When the participants are interviewed, they show resentment at the way Asians are portrayed in films and view it as persecution in the form of reinforcing stereotypes. But that doesn't mean they have all concluded the film industry evil or purposely intolerant. They just acknowledge there is a long way to go before equality and respect become a reality.

As for your last sentence, no one is talking about stripping away your rights through voting, so I, for one, fail to see what you're trying to say there. No one has suggested or encouraged voting for some kind of policy that prohibits you from speaking your mind. I just find it ridiculous that some prejudiced people here refer to everyone else that way. Pot's calling the kettle black.

However, you are ignoring all the unfair stereotypes portrayed by Christians of other religions or atheists. You don't know how many times I have been persecuted by Christians because I'm a white man who is also a Buddhist. They assume a lot about what I believe, without ever asking. How many times have I been told that I am going to hell because of their beliefs and not mine. That is a form of persecution.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Again, you think persecution only implies physical harm. You are overlooking all the ridicule and stereotyping that goes on. Christians are only portrayed as well-meaning idiots or aggressive bigots. Look at it the way the AMC Network is showcasing the Asian population in film. When the participants are interviewed, they show resentment at the way Asians are portrayed in films and view it as persecution in the form of reinforcing stereotypes. But that doesn't mean they have all concluded the film industry evil or purposely intolerant. They just acknowledge there is a long way to go before equality and respect become a reality.

As for your last sentence, no one is talking about stripping away your rights through voting, so I, for one, fail to see what you're trying to say there. No one has suggested or encouraged voting for some kind of policy that prohibits you from speaking your mind. I just find it ridiculous that some prejudiced people here refer to everyone else that way. Pot's calling the kettle black.

Are you mental? You keep telling me that I am talking only about physical harm and I have repeatedly said that is not the case. In fact, all one has to do is read my posts and understand english for that accusation to be soundly untrue.

And homosexuals are protrayed only as freakishly femenine flamers that float 2 feet off the ground when they skip by carrying their purse and telling you how to decorate your living room! Use your own example, which I'm not familiar with, but applies. You're saying christians are the most persecuted group in the country and then you point out how Asians are misrepresented and persecuted?

I completely understand you fail to see my point. That is your problem. You keep repeating the same argument and totally failing to understand any one's response to it. Freedom of speech is not my point. All rights, period, are my point. And you are sitting there telling me that as a gay man I have the same rights as you? And that you wouldn't walk into a voting booth and cast a ballot for a homosexual not to have the rights to equal marriage? But, lets go one step further and apply your inability to get over freedom of speech. You are aparently outraged at teh way christians are persecuted, but acknowledge only your right to belittle and persecute others by saying what ever you will about them. But then you turn around and think it's unfair when people exercise that same right in regards to their opinion of christianity? You call it persecution.

Media stereotypes hardly constitute prejudice...

Christian media outlets, and non-Christian ones, have the right to portray people of any race, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender, class, religion, etc, in as uni- or mullti-dimensional a light as they see fit.

I think the point needs to be made that, as entertainment, archetypes are much more suitable for, at least American, mainstream tastes.