Shad
Veteran Member
Because we are all well aware of western secularism's hard "Buddhist immigrant ban".
There was never a Muslim ban. Read the EO and try again.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because we are all well aware of western secularism's hard "Buddhist immigrant ban".
In the latest stabbings and other attacks not much was said about White Nationalism, Neo- Nazis, or Trump.
Wonder why that is....
Can you give an example of this, and the consequences of it?
When white supremacists calls for "strong families", what exactly is it that you think they mean by "strong"?
You're kind of perfectly demonstrating how and why propaganda is effective, which was kind of Sigurd's whole point. The initial messages are general, vague and seem positive. But they are espoused by literal, actual white supremacists, and when you peel away that veneer you realize that what they're actually saying isn't "strong families". It's "white families". They aren't championing "free speech". They're championing "hate speech (and censoring non-white voices)". They aren't "anti-socialist". They're "anti-anything that potentially gives non-white people in society any power".
Marching under the banners of "free speech, anti-socialism and strong families" acts as a kind of cloak for their ideologies. It's what lead to the Unite the Right rally, which saw many moderate-right wingers and Conservatives marching alongside white supremacists and neo-Nazis, chanting Nazi slogans and cheering calls for a race war. Many of them "totally weren't white supremacists" either, and yet they platformed, enabled and tacitly approved white supremacist ideology.
Today was attack # 10 against Jews during Hanukkah. All these attacks have been in Brooklyn. Today five people were stabbed at a Hanukkah party.
I’ve always thought of the US as a safe place for Jews to be. I don’t know about that anymore.
Just clarifying your analogy. You say the state and the religion are not the same thing, and yet the state's actions certainly seem to be based on religious ideology. You say the state and the people are not the same thing, but every Israeli citizen participates in the state's military, and therefor personally participates in it's ongoing conquest of Palestinian owned lands. You say American Jews have nothing to do with Israeli Jews, but I never hear or see an American Jew condemning what the Jews in Israel are doing to the Palestinians.You just can't help yourself, I see.
I have, but it's not all that common....I never hear or see an American Jew condemning what the Jews in Israel are doing to the Palestinians.
The attack was by a man with a machete, he did his evil and got away (later captured).Today was attack # 10 against Jews during Hanukkah. All these attacks have been in Brooklyn. Today five people were stabbed at a Hanukkah party.
I’ve always thought of the US as a safe place for Jews to be. I don’t know about that anymore.
No you weren't. You were interjecting a point completely irrelevant to the question or response. No part of your point explained anything about how Judaism is passed or the religious nature of the state. Like your first comment in this thread, you're just using any occasion as irrelevant as it may be, as a platform to point a finger at Israel. Which is obviously kind of stupid.Just clarifying your analogy.
That only shows how little you know about the state. The state is formed from many different parties, only some of which are ideologically religious (ie. there are some parties that don't promote a religious platform, but may have members who are privately religious and vise versa). There are three areas that the religious parties were able to take control of: conversion, marriage and one other which I forget. The rest are pretty much not. Transportation and construction on the Sabbath - forbidden by Jewish Law - in cities with major religious populations is a constant battle between the religious and secular elements of the government.You say the state and the religion are not the same thing, and yet the state's actions certainly seem to be based on religious ideology.
First of all, not every Israeli participates in the military. Second of all, the millitary hasn't conquered anything in decades. The last major military maneuver that wasn't a war, involved the army clearing out Israeli civilians from Gaza. Third of all, there's no ongoing conquest of Palestinian owned lands. At least not by any major political parties or government agencies.You say the state and the people are not the same thing, but every Israeli citizen participates in the state's military, and therefor personally participates in it's ongoing conquest of Palestinian owned lands.
Perhaps that's because American Jews generally agree with Israel's perspective?You say American Jews have nothing to do with Israeli Jews, but I never hear or see an American Jew condemning what the Jews in Israel are doing to the Palestinians.
hint: Jews are also white
More importantly, they are probably not African Americans. That term gets thrown about because ppl are afraid "black" is offensive (despite being okay on government forms for decades), but frankly it is only accurate for those born in the US. If you are not born in the US, you are a native African or African immigrant. This matters because with many of these big cities promoting immigration (legal or not), many of these native Africans don't share the mentality of African Americans. This works too ways, as some are harder working and less welfare dependent than African Americans, while others come from violent countries.
...Americans being too ignorant to understand anything outside of the bubble of their country.
Has any of this to do with the horrific behavior of the Israeli government, lately? No one seems to be willing to even ask that question for fear of being labeled an anti-Semite.
...You have just confirmed the problem. You are saying the idea of strong families is bad because of who is making the signs.
OR;
Free speech is bad because someone I don't agree with advocates for it.
Free speech is only good when *I* advocate for it.
OR;
Certain white supremacists make signs saying that strong families make strong nations.
Therefore, since white supremacists can't be right about ANYTHING, strong families are bad.
...
And, again, a perfect example of being taken in by propaganda.
"Oh, you don't like the white supremacist ideology of the people who are making these leaflets about strong families? You must being against strong families then!"
Did you even read a word a wrote?
Answer me this question: when a WHITE SUPREMACIST advocates "strong families", what do you think they mean?
...
And, again, a perfect example of being taken in by propaganda.
"Oh, you don't like the white supremacist ideology of the people who are making these leaflets about strong families? You must being against strong families then!"
Did you even read a word a wrote?
Answer me this question: when a WHITE SUPREMACIST advocates "strong families", what do you think they mean?
Then you're a perfect target for propaganda.I take those signs at face value.
That's not what I've said. But it is a fact that what a white supremacist means when they talk about "strong families" is "WHITE families". That's the point of the propaganda - lure people in with generalities, then allow the agenda to seep in under this heading.Strong families make strong nations. That sentiment is true. It doesn't really matter what the intent underneath the sentiment is, or what THEY mean by 'strong families' vs. what I mean. What you are implying is that since white supremacists mean one thing by it, then of course anybody else who uses the phrase MUST MEAN the same thing. You are allowing them to steal our truths in the service of their lies.
That's the appropriation of a symbol. This isn't appropriation - it's just straight up propaganda. I've never said "strong families" are a bad thing - and that's the point. But what is MEANT by that phrase in this instance is not what I would mean when I think about strong families. They're using the general phrase to lure you into believing that they hold the same values as you - after-all, who doesn't agree that "strong families" are a good thing?The same thing was done with the swastika, you know. Before the Nazi's messed with it, for a couple of thousand years it was a symbol of peace, prosperity and fertility. There weren't any evil associations with it. My great grandmother made a quilt with the swastika symbol, that I have carefully stored in a chest. Certainly I dare not put it on a bed or display it!
It's not the words. It's the ideology BEHIND them. If the words were printed on a leaflet for, say, a charity promoting adoption, or a civil liberties institute, I wouldn't have the same issue.Don't let evil people co-opt truth so that only they can use them. Strong families make strong nations. That is truth. Those five words have NOTHING to do with whatever skin color the families have. Or...to put it the way you did, it is not ME who has been 'taken in by propaganda,' but you, who have allowed those five words to symbolize white supremacy, when they absolutely do not.
Yes it does, because that's why they printed it.And it doesn't matter one whit what THEY want us to think about it.
snip to...
Tell me, what possible reason could white supremacists have for printing these leaflets?
By linking themselves to positive phrases while sneaking their ideology in.Because they want people to think well of them.
That is literally the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, I explicitly and very clearly explained to you that's not what I've done in my previous post. Did you even read it?Secondarily, they want the idea so tied to THEM that people like you see 'Strong families make strong nations' and automatically see 'white supremacy,' so that the whole idea of 'strong families make strong nations' is distasteful. They WANT you to associate the phrase with them.
But you're wrong - you're not seeing the idea for what they are actually presenting it as. That's the whole point of propaganda - say something generally positive and accepted in order to sneak in a particular agenda. That's the point. To focus on the vaguery of "strong families" you're missing the actual point of what the white supremacists are actually advocating. You're falling for their trap.So don't let them do that. I said very early on in this conversation that I agreed with the sign until I got to the last, fine print, where they referred to 'race,' at which time I got utterly 'turned off' their agenda. That is NOT me being a prime target for propaganda. That is me being clear eyed and able to see a concept for what it is, not for who proclaims it.
Whoah.Strong families make strong nations. Frankly, given the problems African American families have...with the vast majority of their children being born outside of wedlock (71%) according to the Brookings Institute (a left leaning group) most of 'em not having good fathers to help raise them, "strong families make strong nations' should be part if THEIR world view.
The sentiment of white families being superior is true?The sentiment is positive, and true....and the point is NOT to allow those who misuse it to get away with doing so.
By linking themselves to positive phrases while sneaking their ideology in.
This isn't complicated stuff.
That is literally the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, I explicitly and very clearly explained to you that's not what I've done in my previous post. Did you even read it?
I've never once said that phrase SHOULD is IS associated with white supremacy.
But you're wrong - you're not seeing the idea for what they are actually presenting it as. That's the whole point of propaganda - say something generally positive and accepted in order to sneak in a particular agenda. That's the point. To focus on the vaguery of "strong families" you're missing the actual point of what the white supremacists are actually advocating. You're falling for their trap.
I explained all of this very clearly in my previous posts. Why did you ignore it?
Whoah.
What exactly are you suggesting here? Because it sounds exactly like what the white supremacists are trying to push.
The sentiment of white families being superior is true?