Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/25/06 1:22pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Keepin' it real" on 09/24/06 1:52pm
>>>Once I did that, you went back and argued against the
>>>site that you before didn't think was worth the
>time.
>>>What changed?
>>
>>When you said "I can see you can't get past the white
>>supremacy thing and look at some of the points the
>>author makes..." I took that as a challenge (and to be
>>honest, almost as an insult--although I know that it
>>probably wasn't intended to be), to which I then
>>responded.
>
>I see. It wasn't really intended to be an insult...
>just my way of expressing frustration with your lack
>of desire to discuss the points made by the author.
>Sorry if it came across that way (I can see how it
>did).
Well, I said almost as an insult, and to be fair some of my own words might have come across as more offensive than I intended.
>>>"Just wondering, when the top of the web page had (in
>>>great big letters) "MARCH OF THE TITANS - A HISTORY
>OF
>>>THE WHITE RACE" didn't that tip you off as a bit
>>>suspicious regarding the issue of white supremacy?"
>>
>>Well, I did think this was a legitimate
>>question. The title immediately made me suspicious,
>>though I confess I am a bit cynical. When you replied
>>to my question, "No... should it?" To which I replied
>>with a follow-up question (noting that the title
>>likened the white race to a race of powerful deities),
>>"How did you interpret the title?" These questions
>>were not meant as insults; I was really curious as to
>>what your thoughts were when you read the title.
>
>Well, I first didn't read the title. I guess I'm
>guilty of skimming a lot before really deciding if
>something is worth my time.
I've done that before too.
>>>In reality, I really didn't notice the title.
>>
>>Ah, so that's why it didn't tip you off as
>>suspicious, because you didn't notice the great big
>>words at the top of the page (as opposed to e.g.
>>interpreting the title differently).
>
>Well, actually, my response "No.. should it?" was also
>genuine. I figured out it was a white supremacy site
>by reading it more thoroughly, and still not from the
>title. I wasn't aware that "Titans" was something
>used by white supremacists.
I'm not sure its commonly used by white supremacists either, but if someone likens the white race to that of powerful deities...well, you get the idea. I am a bit cynical so perhaps it's easy for me to be suspicious.
>>Well, here's the thing I didn't get (and still don't).
>> You apparently assumed that this white
>>supremacist guy was "pro-Christianity" and then became
>>bemused as to why this author would argue that the
>>religion is false. The "two and two" conclusion would
>>seem to be that this author (and anyone else who
>>attacks the veracity of Christianity in such a manner)
>>is probably not "pro-Christianity" and that your
>>initial assumption was simply false.
>
>Maybe... I said, "Aren't they pro-Christianity, or at
>least their version? Why would they want to promote
>the idea that Christianity evolved from other
>religions?" I realize that their own version of
>Christianity may be skewed, but I did think white
>supremacists considered themselves Christians. Don't
>they?
Many do, but we have to be careful not to over-generalize (there are exceptions to many rules of thumb). It seemed clear from his writing that this particular fellow was not a Christian.
>>Seriously, was
>>there anything in the page that gave you the idea that
>>this guy was "pro-Christianity"? Why did you hold on
>>to this assumption after his attack? Is there
>>something I missed?
>
>No, nothing you missed... just my preconceived notion
>that white supremacists consider themselves Christian,
>I guess.
What puzzled me is why you seemed to hold on to this preconception after he attacked the veracity of the Christian faith.
>I'm still wondering if that's inaccurate.
>Let me know if you find something that indicates
>otherwise. If they aren't Christian, how do they
>align themselves as far as religion?
Most (in the U.S.) probably call themselves Christian methinks, if for no other reason that Christianity is the dominant religion in these United States and a "tribal religion" helps keeps these kinds of things together. I read an excellent book called "The Myth of a Christian Nation" (I highly recommend it), and there the author talks about a "tribal religion" held by a culture for unification purposes (ironically, sometimes its professing adherents do not adhere to the fundamentals of said religion). This is probably what has taken place here. A similar thing is true when it comes to Muslims and terrorism. Whether American is the "Great Satan" is actually independent of Islam and its source really has to do more with the anti-American culture itself. It's just a bad coincidence that the "tribal religion" happens to be Islam in this case. And of course, killing innocent people runs pretty contrary to the true spirit of Islam.
>I see them as
>basically redneck, rebel-flag waving, Bible-believing
>Southerners. Maybe I'm wrong.
>
>[after a couple of Google searches...]
>
>Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia on this issue:
>"In the United States, some claim white supremacist
>movements are linked to fundamentalist Christianity
>but most Christians denounce the movement as
>fundamentally non-Christian. The Christian Identity
>movement, which tends to regard other branches of
>Christianity as heretical, is closely tied to White
>Supremacism." [full link]
My personal experience leads me to distrust Wikipedia to some extent. I've had some problems with Wikipedia in getting some factual stuff corrected, because overzealous editors policing the article have an agenda for the inaccurate status quo (see here for instance), but I suspect what they say is accurate here at least in the sense that most white supremacists call themselves Christian (see above). I tend to be somewhat cynical of human nature, and that includes those humans who call themselves Christian.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 