Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

[abaddon]

cool, cool, y'all don't care about those either (and the suggestion that Muslims are not among the faithful... well that is something...)

No, the only poster supporting the Chinese atrocities is you.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Oh gee whiz!

Now 'The Big Dog' has declared that this thread is actually about "Unyielding Marxist Atheists".

And has done so like Donny - with no evidence and just repetition of the same unsupported "talking point". Someone is going to end up shouting alone in a dark place, claiming "they won". There's a word for that sort of behaviour that apparently I can't mention or even allude to.

Herewith ends my involvement in this thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

“Certainly, Xi thought it was necessary to emphasize in his weekend speech that CCP cadres must act as “unyielding Marxist atheists … and bear in mind the party’s tenets.” Deploying an oddly religious phrase, he also told them to “consolidate their faith.””

http://time.com/4306179/china-religion-freedom-xi-jinping-muslim-christian-xinjiang-buddhist-tibet/

Quoted before, quoted again.

I give the flounce 2 pogroms out of 10.

 

[David Mo]

He was a victim of Unyielding Marxist Atheists, which is of course exactly what this thread is about.

I get tho that he criticized atheists which makes him persona non grata among the unyielding marxist atheist atrocity crowd, as we have seen.

Besides a victim he was also a fanatic Orthodox and Zarist. He was not an authority about atheism. Please give reasons, not opinions.

 

[David Mo]

“Certainly, Xi thought it was necessary to emphasize in his weekend speech that CCP cadres must act as “unyielding Marxist atheists … and bear in mind the party’s tenets.” Deploying an oddly religious phrase, he also told them to “consolidate their faith.””

http://time.com/4306179/china-religion-freedom-xi-jinping-muslim-christian-xinjiang-buddhist-tibet/

Quoted before, quoted again.

I give the flounce 2 pogroms out of 10.

You repeat the same statements and opinions over and over again. The article is manipulating: neither William Nee is speaking on behalf of Amnesty International nor is he talking about the case of closed churches. You always mention the same sources with the same manipulations and forget when the true reason is give: sinizisation.

Here what really says Amnesty International:

Freedom of religion and belief
In June, the State Council passed the revised Regulations on Religious Affairs, to come into effect on 1 February 2018. It codified far-reaching state control over every aspect of religious practice, and extended power to authorities at all levels of the government to monitor, control and potentially punish religious practice. The revised law, which emphasized national security with a goal of curbing “infiltration and extremism”, could be used to further suppress the right to freedom of religion and belief, especially for Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims and unrecognized churches.6

Falun Gong practitioners continued to be subjected to persecution, arbitrary detention, unfair trials and torture and other ill-treatment. Chen Huixia remained detained since 2016 for suspicion of “using an evil cult to undermine law enforcement”. In May, her trial was adjourned after her lawyer requested the court exclude evidence extracted through torture.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Oh man... does not understand what propaganda is at this point...

Lies issuing from a government? Like Xi's bogus justification for the totalitarian crackdown, then. (Which I condemn, by the way).

Xi and his lackeys establish a rule that all members of the CCP must be unyielding marxist atheists is not "propaganda."

No. It's the bizarre idea that all members of an atheist Marxist group should be atheist Marxists. Oh, the infamy!

Citing to China Today to justify putting 1 million Muslims in camps is both propaganda and reprehensible.

Who did that, and in which post? I certainly didn't.

 

[Crossbow]

“Certainly, Xi thought it was necessary to emphasize in his weekend speech that CCP cadres must act as “unyielding Marxist atheists … and bear in mind the party’s tenets.” Deploying an oddly religious phrase, he also told them to “consolidate their faith.””

http://time.com/4306179/china-religion-freedom-xi-jinping-muslim-christian-xinjiang-buddhist-tibet/

Quoted before, quoted again.

I give the flounce 2 pogroms out of 10.

So what are you waiting for?

If this issue actually bothers you so very much, then you and/or your god should actually do something about it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Official Chinese government-backed website. Note the puzzling absence of crackdown.


http://www.chinatoday.com/culture/china_religions/catholic_china_religion.htm

The section on Islam is also worth a look.

Who did that, and in which post? I certainly didn't.

Yes, yes you did...

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Citing to China Today to justify putting 1 million Muslims in camps is both propaganda and reprehensible.

Who did that, and in which post? I certainly didn't.

Yes, yes you did...

Here's the post. Please highlight the part where I justified putting 1 million Muslims in camps.

Official Chinese government-backed website. Note the puzzling absence of crackdown.


http://www.chinatoday.com/culture/china_religions/catholic_china_religion.htm

The section on Islam is also worth a look.

This is especially dishonest, given that the number of times I have explicitly and unreservedly condemned any and all human rights abuses in this thread is now running into double figures. You have yet to acknowledge a single one of them.
By the way, I unreservedly and unequivocally condemn all human rights abuses, even those committed by atheists.

Did you notice this time, TBD?

 

[David Mo]

Here's the post. Please highlight the part where I justified putting 1 million Muslims in camps.


This is especially dishonest, given that the number of times I have explicitly and unreservedly condemned any and all human rights abuses in this thread is now running into double figures. You have yet to acknowledge a single one of them.
By the way, I unreservedly and unequivocally condemn all human rights abuses, even those committed by atheists.

Did you notice this time, TBD?

I very much doubt it. Goebbels' technique of propaganda consisted precisely in not taking notice and continuing with the broken record. In Spain we say also "power hammer" (martillo pilón). In general it works but I don't know what the Big Dog intends in this forum where it had been obviously debunked long time ago. I can imagine it.

However, I regret that others have dropped out a discussion about the responsability of ideologies in the abuses commited on their behalf. It was a really interesting issue.

 

[The Big Dog]

Good morning folks, while one can claim that they condemn human rights abuses, when one cites to actual Chinese propaganda attempting to justify the atrocities, one’s acts speak louder than any big red font.

Indeed, the line was “note the puzzling absence of crackdown.”

That rule holds even where, nay especially where, our correspondents put their alleged disclaimers in big red fonts.

 

[jimbob]

Good morning folks, while one can claim that they condemn human rights abuses, when one cites to actual Chinese propaganda attempting to justify the atrocities, one’s acts speak louder than any big red font.

Indeed, the line was “note the puzzling absence of crackdown.”

That rule holds even where, nay especially where, our correspondents put their alleged disclaimers in big red fonts.

I don't see any posters in this thread condoning the multiple human rights abuses by the Chinese government. I do see almost all the posters disagreeing with a simplistic analysis that blames the official atheism for those abuses, as opposed to the fact that if an autocratic regime has any official position on matters of religion, dissenting religions will be suppressed.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't see any posters in this thread condoning the multiple human rights abuses by the Chinese government. I do see almost all the posters disagreeing with a simplistic analysis that blames the official atheism for those abuses, as opposed to the fact that if an autocratic regime has any official position on matters of religion, dissenting religions will be suppressed.

You are incorrect, beyond the numerous posters desperately trying divert attention from the human rights by offering excuses or actually going so far as to cite actual Chinese propaganda and talk about dissident groups.

Further, and as important, you have misrepresented what I have explained, which can be summarized as:

Autocratic regime + atheism = anti-religious human rights abuses.

To borrow your phrase, it is simplistic to think that the claiming that other autocratic regimes suppress other groups rebuts my analysis.

Indeed, as I have pointed out, atheist autocratic States like the USSR and China have industrialized anti religious human rights abuses.

 

[jimbob]

You are incorrect, beyond the numerous posters desperately trying divert attention from the human rights by offering excuses or actually going so far as to cite actual Chinese propaganda and talk about dissident groups.

Further, and as important, you have misrepresented what I have explained, which can be summarized as:

Autocratic regime + atheism = anti-religious human rights abuses.

To borrow your phrase, it is simplistic to think that the claiming that other autocratic regimes suppress other groups rebuts my analysis. Indeed, as I have pointed out, atheist autocratic States like the USSR and China have industrialized anti religious human rights abuses.

Except that the highlighted part is inane. That is what autocracies do.


Autocracies attempt to suppress ideologies that aren't complicit in supporting them. That will often involve having compliant priests - sometimes it will involve a state religion, as was the case in Tudor England.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except that the highlighted part is inane. That is what autocracies do.


Autocracies attempt to suppress ideologies that aren't complicit in supporting them. That will often involve having compliant priests - sometimes it will involve a state religion, as was the case in Tudor England.

I have found that the new religion around here is whataboutism.

We are talking about the actual on going human rights going on today in China, not “Tudor England” or similar ancient diversionary nonsense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have found that the new religion around here is whataboutism.

We are talking about the actual on going human rights going on today in China, not “Tudor England” or similar ancient diversionary nonsense.

On going - going on. Ya, your justified wrath might be a smidgen more impressive with an even cursory proof-read.

We all know what the human rights situation is in China, and we don't approve of it. But what WE are talking about is your despicable attempt to make it a particular vice of atheism.

To be sure, on a global scale the human rights abuses in China (and everywhere else they happen) are an abomination. But witnessing someone exploit those abuses to further their personal agenda is, in the context of this forum, an double abomination.

Hans

 

[The Big Dog]

On going - going on. Ya, your justified wrath might be a smidgen more impressive with an even cursory proof-read.

We all know what the human rights situation is in China, and we don't approve of it. But what WE are talking about is your despicable attempt to make it a particular vice of atheism.

To be sure, on a global scale the human rights abuses in China (and everywhere else they happen) are an abomination. But witnessing someone exploit those abuses to further their personal agenda is, in the context of this forum, an double abomination.

Hans

It is called emphasis through repitition, to highlight how preposterous it is to cite, what was it, oh yeah Tudor England, to avoid actually discussing what is going on “TU-DAY.” (Oh man see what I did there?)

Again, folks, gaze upon what passes for a double abomination, a post on the internet, as opposed to actual human rights abuses, which merit merely a single abomination. Seriously, save the lip service about the level of concern about the human rights violations, I ain’t buying it and I am certain that no one else who has witnessed the appalling arguments made by atheist apologists does so either.

 

[abaddon]

It is called emphasis through repitition, to highlight how preposterous it is to cite, what was it, oh yeah Tudor England, to avoid actually discussing what is going on “TU-DAY.” (Oh man see what I did there?)

Again, folks, gaze upon what passes for a double abomination, a post on the internet, as opposed to actual human rights abuses, which merit merely a single abomination. Seriously, save the lip service about the level of concern about the human rights violations, I ain’t buying it and I am certain that no one else who has witnessed the appalling arguments made by atheist apologists does so either.

The abomination is that you support the actions of the Chinese regime. I want to know why that is.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

As I have pointed out a half dozen times, he in fact does and enacted internet crackdowns on every single religious person in China.
Which i supported with citations to third party sources.

Folks, when you going to learn that your argument by bare assertion does not impress anyone but the atheist apologists that have been running interference or outright cheer-leading his Unyielding Marxist Atheism.

Official Chinese government-backed website. Note the puzzling absence of crackdown.

http://www.chinatoday.com/culture/china_religions/catholic_china_religion.htm

The section on Islam is also worth a look.

Good morning folks, while one can claim that they condemn human rights abuses, when one cites to actual Chinese propaganda attempting to justify the atrocities, one’s acts speak louder than any big red font.

Indeed, the line was “note the puzzling absence of crackdown.” That rule holds even where, nay especially where, our correspondents put their alleged disclaimers in big red fonts.

Truly breathtaking dishonesty. It is quite obvious that I was referring to your own post, about there being an internet crackdown on every single religious person in China. Not only was this obvious from the beginning, I have repeatedly pointed this out to you in subsequent posts. There is no possibility of you being honestly mistaken here.

If this kind of behaviour is representative of the morality of Christians as a whole, I'll take atheism any day. TBD, is it your hope that you will win converts to your religion? Has anyone been seduced by your brand of dishonesty and mockery, and is there any Bibilical justification for what you are doing here?

 

[abaddon]

Truly breathtaking dishonesty.

Ah, yes, see the whole concept of "lying for jebus" is an actual thing. It is a policy. The lying itself, while a sin, is obviated by the sudden rescue of some lost soul.

This works, of course, right up to the point that the rescuees get so browned off that they actively oppose the rescuer because nobody is going to like an idiot. The rescuer then rationalises this by thinking that the victim just didn't see the supernatural glow of jebus through all of the hateful bigotry they propound. This poses a problem. Was it the hateful bigotry? They then conclude that this is not possible and proceed to double down, all the while being unable to figure out what it is about jebus and their faith that is so obnoxious.

This is not new. I see such actors here and elsewhere on other fora. It is scummy, I will grant you.