Not really. Football fans are tribalistic but not necessarily nationalistic (unless they're following their national team).
I expect you will find a bible behind all of it somewhere. Yiuvare not likely to find any atheists and non Christians as part of the extreme right.
You probably know by now that I disagree with you on several points. If you read the WaPo article, you would realize that the Freethought caucus is made up of both atheists and religious folks. I strongly disagree that all religion has a negative influence on us. Humans have always been drawn to mythology and other unproven concepts. Sometimes these beliefs become extreme, but that happens among secular ideology as well. Communism might sound good on paper to some, but it's never worked out well when it's been tried in a large society. Atheist communists have sometimes wreaked havoc on the innocent, but I don't want to get that sidetracked so I'll leave it at that.
Actually, McVeigh identified as an agnostic. I can't prove that to you, but I watched an interview of him shortly before he was executed. He was asked about the after life and he said that he didn't believe there was an afterlife and he doubted there was a god. He was asked how he would handle it, if he was wrong. He answered something like he would do his best to cope. I remember that interview well because I was surprised by what McVeigh said. I'm sure there are other atheists who are harmful, to one degree or another. Atheists don't own the moral high ground any more than any other group does.
As I recall, he was raised Catholic, came to find that that tradition and its hierarchy too cloying, but maintained some supernatural beliefs. His core motivation in his terrorist activities were fear and paranoia concerning the federal government, however, not any sort of religious or anti-religious activism. He was specifically mtivated by a desire for revenge concerning the Waco incident which for the fringe Right was a political moment akin to 9/11; the moment the gloves came off and the federal government began openly persecuting and executing her white citizens.
You didn't respond to anything I said, so I will return the favor.
No, he said a lot more than that on at least three different occasions, two of which I've posted on this thread.
You can call it what you want, but I call it boorish personal abuse resorted to when logic and facts are unavailable to support the position that religion does not have a negative effect on people. It was nice of him, though, to prove that religion does have an antisocial effect on people!
Then when some jerk curses at you and abuses you, then I will wave it away as as "well below the threshold."
This is an example of that "don't get involved" attitude that is so prevalent in our society whenever some other person is being victimized. What will you do when you are the victim and nobody "gets involved"?
Like I said hit the report button or take it up with mods on private feedback. It is against forum policy to discuss specific moderation issues for a good reason. It gets oput of hand.
You're missing my point. We're not discussing how to handle online troublemakers but are discussing the potential of religious harm and violence. I posted an example of such potential on the part of a board member to demonstrate just how "up close and personal" the potential of religious violence can be. Religious violence doesn't always happen far away to people you'll never know but can happen to anybody. As a child and even as a young adult I was victimized by the religious and often violently. It's plain foolhardy to turn a blind eye to it.
You won't be laughing if you become a victim of religious violence.
Okay.
What is the potential harm beyond what we already know and see?
No I'm not.
Regardless of what you call yourself, your posts can be read by anybody on this board. You can't change what you posted.
Your "dig" was a cruel insult that was completely uncalled for, and I didn't misrepresent anybody.
I posted what you said word-for-word along with links to where you said it. Anybody can check to see that I'm not misrepresenting anybody.
Actually, I'm really not complaining. I want people to read what those who defend religion have to say. I'm opposed to censorship. So whenever somebody says something you disagree with, go ahead and curse at him, call him names, misrepresent him, and tell him he stinks. I can take it, and people can read it and come to their own conclusions.
Killing, torture, and destruction are and have been the results of religious animosity.
LOL--I never once complained about people disagreeing with me.
I'm not here to make friends, and I don't understand what that has to do with what I said about evangelists.
Killing, torture, and destruction is related to those who hold absolute power, not necessarily just religions in power. Atheist nations like the old Soviet Union, China, Kampuchea, and North Korea have killed and oppressed millions often starting by purging the religious.
