The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles
Title: "Militant Atheist" Endorses Stalinist Censorship for "religious fanatics" at LP; Exposed as a Hypocrite
Source:
Liberty Post
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... gi?ArtNum=348566&Disp=525#C525
Published: Oct 13, 2014
Author: Redleghunter
Post Date: 2014-10-13 14:15:07 by Liberator
Keywords: MilitantAtheist, HypocritalLibertarian, FauxConstitutionalist
Views: 83827
Comments: 168
#525. To: tpaine, Vicomte13, GarySpFc, listener (#502)
LOL you are a piece of work. What about the libertarian, CT and homosexual lobby fanatics who post here? Mr. Libertarian you can't silence one philosophical voice or view, let all others opine and expect to be called libertarian.
Mr. Constitution I and every person of faith or religion has a First Amendment Right to freely exercise our religion AND as with all Americans the freedom of speech. Now if Goldi wants to limit those rights on her forum fine, but call it "Limited Libertypost" to accurately portray the site.
For someone who opines daily on the rights of individuals yet wants a particular philosophical thought suppressed is complete hypocrisy.
Please examine yourself.
Redleghunter is apparently one of those "religious fanatics" tpaine referred to. Tpaine -- a HUGE so-called "constitutionalist" and crusader for libertarianism -- was emboldened and still intoxicated and inspired by Goldi-Lox's "fanatic jesus"/you make me VOMIT!" comment.
Will Mr. Constitution "comprende" Hunting Season when its declared on hypocritical Libertarians? Chyeah, Paine -- We ALL saw what happened when one Closet Christian-Hater got called out on his fake "libertarian" and select memory of the US Constitution.
(Tpaine):"We've all seen what happened at FR when religious fanaticism took too much control. Goldie doesn't want it to happen here. Comprende?"
Poster Comment:
Tpaine -- yet another closeted out-of-the-woodwork Stalinist libertarian/Militant Atheist and anti-Christian -- was exposed and called out for his utter and complete blatant hypocrisy. Courtesy, redleghunter..
[Thread Locked] Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: redleghunter, LF (#0)
Hypocrisy and pseudo-Stalinism at "Limited Liberty" Post has become rife. (Or has it always been, but just percolated up to the surface when Goldi blew open her Door of Hate?) Btw, savvy observations. Thanks for exposing the truth of the matter, Red.
Yes, thankyou red! :) tpaine is one of the people I absolutely cannot stomach. He is a rabid Libertarian who doesn't realize that his comments reveal the opposite of what he claims to be. "Mr. Constitution," you are a legend in your own mind.
A man truly possessed.... BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD :-) He has been armed and blessed with the sword of Truth in staunch defense of the Faith. May many others find inspiration and courage in his determination and strength. tpaine is one of the people I absolutely cannot stomach. He is a rabid Libertarian who doesn't realize that his comments reveal the opposite of what he claims to be. A Libertarian to the extent that in his mind, moral relativism is supposedly the intent endorsed by the Framers of the Constitution. I am embarrassed for him, but also for many others at "Liberty" Post who hold the same opinion. Having humored his charade of hiding behind the purported Atheism of Thomas Paine, just who was he? Thomas Paine helped fan the flames of the American Revolution. So inspirational was it, that George Washington ordered the first essay from 'Common Sense' read aloud to the troops at Valley Forge... Unfortunately, Paine later became infatuated with the French Revolution, which he mistakenly saw as in the same tradition as the American Revolution. Paine later realized his error. The American Revolution was based on Christian principles, while the French Revolution was hostile to Christianity. The American Revolution resulted in unprecedented political liberty for its citizens, while the French Revolution ended in a bloodthirsty tyranny. Paine's unfortunate defense of the French Revolution was titled 'The Age of Reason,' a book he later recanted: Thomas Paine's last words were: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/paine.html
OUCH! Lol...
Another lovely cross-forum thread you posted. tpaine, I don't think you can compete with my own much more impressive thread found here. You're going to have to try harder, T.
Thank you -- I aim to please. Keeping everyone on their toes is my life's calling... I've been tempted to create a thread, quoting that "Faux Christian" retread, F16Fighter. Then I ask myself, "Is that PITA worth the grief?" ;-)
You might want to take a look at yukon's attempt to re-invent himself by quoting scripture in all of his posts. "Is that PITA worth the grief?" I suggest you bozo him. ;>)
Don't you need to have your own mind before you can be a legend in your own mind? Yea, I though so. Well. tpaine has shown in his posts that he is mindless ... in that he acts or does without justification or concern for the consequences. Sorry about shooting your thesis down, ODS.
DONE as soon as I saw his dishonorable moniker. :-)
Will the heretic be burned at the stake?
At some point in time, it's ALL our turn. ;-)
At least he posted a link to that thread, --- wherein Goldi, and I, defended her concept that posters on a forum dedicated to discussions on constitutional liberty and its political aspects, should not have to be subjected to fundamentalist preaching on threads posted about politics. I think we made her point, and the preaching over at LP was toned down a bit. There's no comparison. I had goldi on my side, so I won't rub it in.
She was a pretty fierce monotheist. And there were times it was too much; sometimes it seems you couldn't go 5 posts on some threads without it jumping the tracks into deep theology. That wasn't what people clicked on the article to read. It's an entirely fair point. I always said the same about posting too much Ron Paul stuff. Or the endless Palin stuff. You need a mix of news to have a little broader site. It isn't some final cruel descent into tyranny because you're expected to at least try post on-topic for a thread. Some people get so dramatic about it.
Some people get so dramatic about it. Lots of drama here now, and the same old suspects from LP are scripting it. So far it's been mostly fun, but I think they're starting to ride AKA and the Devil a bit too much. Seems like every other post they're being pinged.
Thankfully, we had this site to come to when LP started to head towards the Soviet-style "freedom from religion" censorship.
"Preaching fanatic"?? Why I oughta...!! Oh, and a hat-tip to TC for opening this can o' worms. Hey, it's not my fault you guys bait me. ;-)
It felt more more "Stalinist" than Soviet ;-) Certain strains of libertarians and atheists still believe that "freedom from religion " is a constitutional "right." Jesus Freaks unite!! :-)
Quite right Mr Obvious. But that was not the issue on the thread you cited. She didn't limit any rights. She asked the religious fundamentalists to lighten up, and by and large they did.
Soviet? Seriously? : )
Though I'm loooong over the issue at hand, JESUS people/fanatics" were ordered to cram His mention. NOT "lighten up." That subject thread as so often is the case these days involved crossover issues of both religion AND politics. It wasn't strictly a "Jesus-fanatic" thread. As for your part, I stand by my words and claim, paine. You sounded more Stalinist than Constitutional: "We've all seen what happened at FR when religious fanaticism took too much control. Goldie doesn't want it to happen here. Comprende?" Uh, no comprendo, Senor Constitution.
Can't we Jesus-fanatics have any fun and engage in the slightest hyperbole? Homophobe. 8-P
She didn't limit any rights. She asked the religious fundamentalists to lighten up, and by and large they did. Anybody can read that thread, and it proves you're still hyping the issue. As I said, anybody can read it, and see that you've mischaracterized it. "We've all seen what happened at FR when religious fanaticism took too much control. Goldie doesn't want it to happen here. Comprende?" I stand by my comment. Your Stalinist remark is sheer bull, and it makes you sound like a fool.
"Freedom from religion" is a Soviet concept, not an American one. We have freedom OF religion here. For a site to advertise itself as not censoring people for their beliefs, but then to censor people due to their religious beliefs or in some cases even political beliefs (she also regularly purged Libertarian posts during election seasons -- note: I'm not a Libertarian, I just recognize that when the censorship of them started that someday it would happen to me too, and indeed it did.) Off topic vulgarity and insults were tolerated and even encouraged, but people simply posting their religious views on a topic of the day were told to keep it hidden from view. The Soviets did the same thing, they would proclaim that the Soviet Union had "freedom of and FROM religion", in practice that meant that if anyone saw you openly practicing or proclaiming Jesus Christ, that you would be punished for it. The Soviets started out proclaiming that they were just "protecting" the average citizen from the "offensive" counter-revolutionary speech of Christians as well, but once they had consolidated their power then scenes like this one from the video occurred: That Russian Orthodox Bishop was placed on trial and executed because he had committed the "crime" of selling all of his possessions and giving the money to the poor -- the Commies declared that he had committed "treason" because "poverty does not exist in the Soviet Union". Ordinary people who went to Church would be tracked by the NKVD and later the KGB and punished for openly displaying their belief in Jesus Christ, because much like the God-Haters at LP, they were offended if they had to see someone openly being a Christian or talking about it. Christians in the Soviet Union were told that they had "freedom of religion", they just had to keep it completely hidden or be punished because if a God- hater saw it they would be offended by it. The Soviets saw restrictions on the public practice of Christianity as completely reasonable, much like the God-hater contingent at LP felt about posting Christian viewpoints on the forums there.
Anybody can read that thread, and it proves you're still hyping the issue. No, I'm not; In fact I'm not the one who dragged this three month-old thread out of mothballs. And let's not belabor the truth of the matter, ok? The record is indeed there for all to see. And so are your own words. I stand by my comment. Your Stalinist remark is sheer bull, and it makes you sound like a fool. You're entitled to your opinion, but not the facts.
+1 Christians in the Soviet Union were told that they had "freedom of religion", they just had to keep it completely hidden or be punished because if a God- hater saw it they would be offended by it. The Soviets saw restrictions on the public practice of Christianity as completely reasonable, much like the God-hater contingent at LP felt about posting Christian viewpoints on the forums there. Your historical and recent observations cannot be refuted. Unless certain libertrian-types who talk the talk but don't walk the walk find history erroneous.
Yeah, those that style themselves as "libertarian" but support censorship of religion are especially hypocritical. The atheists continually bleat that they fear a "theocracy" if American Christians are allowed to participate in the public square, but history shows us that there was never any regime more completely evil and oppressive than the one that occurred when the atheists seized power.
Thank you. EXACTLY my point. The atheists continually bleat that they fear a "theocracy" if American Christians are allowed to participate in the public square, but history shows us that there was never any regime more completely evil and oppressive than the one that occurred when the atheists seized power. So well articulated a "true-dat," that it still blows my mind that the same atheists ignore history, yet perpetuate this so-called "theocracy" myth. That it is ever taken seriously by any "intellectual honest/critical thinkers" is beyond me.
They had their own little "Praise the Lord" echo chamber going where nary a contrary word was heard,and they liked it that way. Now they are going to start playing "The Persecuted Victim" again.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yeah,days jist to mucha dat freedum stuff goin round,huh? We'uns doan needs nunya dat stinkin feedum stuff,dowe? Who doze peeppills think dey iz anyhow,'murikans?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Only because it is. It's called having a "choice". Nobody is forcing you to NOT be religious,but you clearly want to force your religious viewpoints on everyone else.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Your whole post is a crock of crap,although I don't have the slightest doubt you believe it because it is what you have been told since you were a child. Nobody was punished for going to church. In FACT,the priesthood was a KGB career field. After all,who better to keep a eye on the people than the man that hears their confessions? Stalin understood this well because he went to school to become a priest. The fact that it is rare to find a Russian that doesn't claim to be of the Russian Orthodox faith today is proof that religion wasn't suppressed on the level you claim. The communists treated religion like they did everything else. They were for it as long as they controlled it,and opposed to it if they thought some foreigners were controlling it. Their whole focus was on controlling power over everyone and everything. I first went to Russia as a tourist the year the Soviet Union collapsed,and I grew up believing the same crap you do. I was very surprised to see all the old churches being restored and at never personally meeting a Russian that didn't claim to believe in God. I'm sure they exist,I just didn't meet any.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Your historical and recent observations cannot be refuted. Say WHAT?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Only because it is. ---- sneakypete These clowns refuse to admit that: -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", --- refers to freedom from STATE religion.
Define what you mean by "public square."
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yeah, the Soviets believed that you had a "choice" as well. They were really offended by people forcing their religious beliefs one everyone else. I mean, look at those insensitive prisoners toward the end of the video, most of them are reciting the Lord's Prayer in public, where everyone is forced to hear it! Obviously the ethical atheist jackboots felt that this violation of their freedom from religion must be dealt with!
I wish someone would bitch-slap Congress and remind them that applies to Muslims,too. Even Muslims with money. Maybe even ESPECIALLY Muslims with money.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It says congress shall make..... It doesn't say the governors shall make no ..... So it couldn't be freedom from state religion. Maybe Federal religion. So if the state constitution didn't prohibit why couldn't you have a state religion? I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. I'm just saying words have meanings.
I don't know who you think claimed that to be true,but it sure wasn't ME. The only Christian religion that was state-approved in the Soviet Union was the Russian Orthodox Church. Of course there were also Jews and Muslims in the USSR,but I have no idea how the various sects were treated,or if one sect from each was given preference. They were really offended by people forcing their religious beliefs one everyone else. I mean, look at those insensitive prisoners toward the end of the video, most of them are reciting the Lord's Prayer in public, where everyone is forced to hear it! You are using a freaking MOVIE as "proof"? Tell me,do you think farm animals carry on conversations,and that rabbits are smarter than hunters? Obviously the ethical atheist jackboots felt that this violation of their freedom from religion must be dealt with! When have you ever seen ME describe atheists as "ethical"? Like Christians,some are,and some aren't.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Stalin understood this well because he went to school to become a priest. The fact that it is rare to find a Russian that doesn't claim to be of the Russian Orthodox faith today is proof that religion wasn't suppressed on the level you claim. The communists treated religion like they did everything else. They were for it as long as they controlled it,and opposed to it if they thought some foreigners were controlling it. Their whole focus was on controlling power over everyone and everything. I first went to Russia as a tourist the year the Soviet Union collapsed,and I grew up believing the same crap you do. I was very surprised to see all the old churches being restored and at never personally meeting a Russian that didn't claim to believe in God. I'm sure they exist,I just didn't meet any. The documentation for people being punished for going to Church is enormous. One Russian Orthodox priest was literally CRUCIFIED on the doors to his Church by the Atheist Soviets. Literally millions of Christians were killed because of their public confession of Jesus Christ. And yes, the majority of Russians were and are Christian. They were being persecuted by an Atheist minority. That's what happens when you let people with an Atheist world-view seize power, they have no moral code. And you confess that you saw Churches being RESTORED. Who was it that had torn them down in the first place? And of course today most Russians are indeed openly Christian. They KNOW that only God could have overthrown the most evil empire in the history of mankind.
And we all know documents don't lie,right? One Russian Orthodox priest was literally CRUCIFIED on the doors to his Church by the Atheist Soviets. I have never tried to deny that some priests weren't murdered by the Soviets,and their churches weren't shut down. Stalin had this done to some of the priests that wouldn't play the role of informer on their congregation. Others were sent off to the labor camps and worked/starved to death. The ones that did play along kept their churches and were kept fat and happy. Or maybe you think that Stalin didn't know about the Patriarch in Moscow? And you confess that you saw Churches being RESTORED. Who was it that had torn them down in the first place? "CONFESS"? What religious crime am I being suspected of being guilty? SOME churches doesn't equal ALL churches,which was your original claim. They KNOW that only God could have overthrown the most evil empire in the history of mankind. Uh,huh. Odd how they/you never seem to question how a all-powerful and all-seeing God let the evil empire come into existence to start with,isn't it? Maybe you think Stalin had him fooled because he went to Divinity School?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", --- refers to freedom from STATE religion. There were some states that still had established state sponsored religions, but they gradually faded away. By the time Utah tried to enter the union, they were rejected because of their state religion. Indeed they do, and the no establishment of religion clause was generally accepted to apply to the States before the civil war. You'd think by now we wouldn't have to argue about it anymore....
Comments (42 - 168) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Liberator (#1)
redleghunter
#3. To: out damned spot, redleghunter, LF (#2)
Yes, thankyou red! :)
"I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone."
"I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God."
#4. To: out damned spot (#2)
"Mr. Constitution," you are a legend in your own mind.
#5. To: Liberator, tpaine (#0)
#6. To: TooConservative, tpaine (#5)
#7. To: Liberator (#6)
I've been tempted to create a thread, quoting that "Faux Christian" retread, F16Fighter.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state.
Paul Craig Roberts
They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#8. To: out damned spot. tpaine (#2)
"Mr. Constitution," you are a legend in your own mind.
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
I suggest you bozo him. ;>)
#10. To: Liberator (#0)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#11. To: hondo68 (#10)
Will the heretic be burned at the stake?
#12. To: TooConservative, and all you preaching fanatics, religous or not. (#5)
Liberator, --- Another lovely cross-forum thread you posted.
tpaine, I don't think you can compete with my own much more impressive thread found here.
#13. To: tpaine (#12)
I think we made her point, and the preaching over at LP was toned down a bit.
#14. To: TooConservative (#13)
#15. To: Liberator (#0)
#16. To: tpaine, TooConservative, all you preaching fanatics, religous or not, all you atheists or not (#12)
#17. To: Orthodoxa (#15)
(Edited)
Thankfully, we had this site to come to when LP started to head towards the Soviet-style "freedom from religion" censorship.
#18. To: Liberator (#16)
Mr. Constitution I and every person of faith or religion has a First Amendment Right to freely exercise our religion AND as with all Americans the freedom of speech.
Now if Goldi wants to limit those rights on her forum fine, but call it "Limited Libertypost" to accurately portray the site.
#19. To: Orthodoxa (#15)
Thankfully, we had this site to come to when LP started to head towards the Soviet-style "freedom from religion" censorship.
#20. To: tpaine (#18)
She didn't limit any rights. She asked the religious fundamentalists to lighten up, and by and large they did.
#21. To: TooConservative, Orthodoxa, CZ82 (#19)
Soviet? Seriously? : )
#22. To: Liberator (#20)
Though I'm loooong over the issue at hand, JESUS people/fanatics" were ordered to cram His mention. NOT "lighten up."
That subject thread as so often is the case these days involved crossover issues of both religion AND politics. It wasn't strictly a "Jesus-fanatic" thread.
As for your part, I stand by my words and claim, paine. You sounded more Stalinist than Constitutional:
#23. To: TooConservative (#19)
Soviet? Seriously?
#24. To: tpaine (#22)
(Edited)
She didn't limit any rights. She asked the religious fundamentalists to lighten up, and by and large they did...
#25. To: Orthodoxa, TooConservative (#23)
Off topic vulgarity and insults were tolerated and even encouraged, but people simply posting their religious views on a topic of the day were told to keep it hidden from view.
#26. To: Liberator (#25)
Your historical and recent observations cannot be refuted. Unless certain libertrian-types who talk the talk but don't walk the walk find history erroneous.
#27. To: Orthodoxa (#26)
Yeah, those that style themselves as "libertarian" but support censorship of religion are especially hypocritical.
#28. To: tpaine (#14)
Lots of drama here now, and the same old suspects from LP are scripting it. So far it's been mostly fun, but I think they're starting to ride AKA and the Devil a bit too much. Seems like every other post they're being pinged.
#29. To: Orthodoxa (#15)
(Edited)
Thankfully, we had this site to come to when LP started to head towards the Soviet-style "freedom from religion" censorship.
#30. To: Liberator (#17)
(Edited)
Certain strains of libertarians and atheists still believe that "freedom from religion " is a constitutional "right."
#31. To: Orthodoxa (#23)
#32. To: Liberator (#25)
Christians in the Soviet Union were told that they had "freedom of religion", they just had to keep it completely hidden or be punished because if a God- hater saw it they would be offended by it. The Soviets saw restrictions on the public practice of Christianity as completely reasonable, much like the God-hater contingent at LP felt about posting Christian viewpoints on the forums there.
#33. To: sneakypete, Y'ALL (#30)
Liberator (#17) ---- Certain strains of libertarians and atheists still believe that "freedom from religion " is a constitutional "right."
#34. To: Orthodoxa (#26)
The atheists continually bleat that they fear a "theocracy" if American Christians are allowed to participate in the public square,
#35. To: sneakypete (#30)
Only because it is. It's called having a "choice". Nobody is forcing you to NOT be religious,but you clearly want to force your religious viewpoints on everyone else.
#36. To: tpaine (#33)
(Edited)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", -
#37. To: tpaine (#33)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", --- refers to freedom from STATE religion.
#38. To: Orthodoxa (#35)
Yeah, the Soviets believed that you had a "choice" as well.
#39. To: sneakypete (#31)
Nobody was punished for going to church. In FACT,the priesthood was a KGB career field. After all,who better to keep a eye on the people than the man that hears their confessions?
#40. To: Orthodoxa (#39)
The documentation for people being punished for going to Church is enormous.
#41. To: A K A Stone (#37)
(Edited)
It says congress shall make..... It doesn't say the governors shall make no ..... So it couldn't be freedom from state religion. Maybe Federal religion.
So if the state constitution didn't prohibit why couldn't you have a state religion? I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. I'm just saying words have meanings.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]