At least 138 people are dead in Sri Lanka.

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
You know, Truimp didn't say "Christians" either.



It's like some of you folks just look for things to be pissy about. It's political point scoring. Congrats. You get a point and we all lose.

People were killed in Church, and some were killed in hotels. When the President made this statement he probably assumed that many of those killed at the hotels were of a religion other than Christian, since this a mostly Buddhist nation.

No one is trying to score political points except yourself .

200 dead and over 600 wounded not including the Thousands wounded by losing friends and relatives and you make your little pissy point.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
You know, Truimp [sic] didn't say "Christians" either.



It's like some of you folks just look for things to be pissy about. It's political point scoring. Congrats. You get a point and we all lose.

Granted. Stipulated. True. But Trump's tweet captured BOTH the Christian church victims AND the hotel victims (who may or may not have been Christian). So, in a word, appropriate. And quite exact for his critics who love to say Trump is loose with his facts. (Edit: just saw Hijinx's post. HJ captured these points; sorry for the small bit of repetition.)

The problem for some of us - me, anyway - was the the farcical use of the term, "Easter worshipers." Maybe Twitterspeak to shorten "worshipers on Easter," but "Christians" is even shorter/less characters. And we Christians don't worship Easter.

Yet we see these same folks in politics and the media calling Muslims "Muslims," not "Kuban Ait worshipers" (i.e., Eid al-Adha) or "Ramadan worshipers."

That's what got folks' knickers up. It's disingenuous BS.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Granted. Stipulated. True. But Trump's tweet captured BOTH the Christian church victims AND the hotel victims (who may or may not have been Christian). So, in a word, appropriate. And quite exact for his critics who love to say Trump is loose with his facts. (Edit: just saw Hijinx's post. HJ captured these points; sorry for the small bit of repetition.)

The problem for some of us - me, anyway - was the the farcical use of the term, "Easter worshipers." Maybe Twitterspeak to shorten "worshipers on Easter," but "Christians" is even shorter/less characters. And we Christians don't worship Easter.

Yet we see these same folks in politics and the media calling Muslims "Muslims," not "Kuban Ait worshipers" (i.e., Eid al-Adha) or "Ramadan worshipers."

That's what got folks' knickers up. It's disingenuous BS.

--- End of line (MCP)

While a silly term, wouldn't you agree that Obama and Clinton were actually highlighting the religious aspect of the attack by specifically mentioning it? Wouldn't it be much worse in terms of "what did the Dems do to piss me off today" if they didn't say anything whatsoever about Easter? I mean, who other than a Christian is an "Easter worshiper"?

The point is, Obama and Clinton pointed more toward the religious aspect than Trump did, but Trump received noticeably less outrage for that vs. the silly term people are pissy about.

The media wasn't the one saying "easter worshipers".

Bottom line: The right is seizing this opportunity to hype up an innocuous phrase in effort to convert expressions of sympathy into dogwhistles of something more than it is. It's no different than the left claiming Ben Shapiro was saying something covertly racist when he spoke about the Notre Dame Cathedral as "a magnificent monument to Western civilization."
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Bottom line: The right is seizing this opportunity to hype up an innocuous phrase in effort to convert expressions of sympathy into dogwhistles of something more than it is. It's no different than the left claiming Ben Shapiro was saying something covertly racist when he spoke about the Notre Dame Cathedral as "a magnificent monument to Western civilization."
Bottom line, no one says "Easter worshippers." They may say "church goers" or "Christians" or "congregation", but no one ever has used the phrase "Easter goers".

Compared with the number of times the word "Muslim" was used, "Christian" would be the logical, reasonable, normal choice. There's a reason they chose a rarely-if-ever used phrase of "Easter worshippers" vice "Christian", because there's just no reason to use a never-before used phraseology - especially when two people used it simultaneously - than there was a reason to do so.

It's illogical to think anything else.

If Shapiro only used the phrase "Western civilization" and never once mentioned it was part of a cathedral, you'd have a point. As it stands, there's not much of a point there due to that.
 

Toxick

Splat
While a silly term, wouldn't you agree that Obama and Clinton were actually highlighting the religious aspect



Easter Worshippers is not only silly - it's inaccurate.

I don't know anyone who worships Easter.

Easter is simply a celebration of an event centered around Christ - the real focus of worship. Would anyone call a Jew a "Yom Kippur Worshiper" or a Muslim a "Ramadan Worshiper"?


Now, while I'm not personally outraged or offended at the use of this term, it's somewhat amusing in its vague stupidity and it's clearly an attempt at PC horseshit, by not naming Christians as such (for reasons I can surmise) in the same way he would never name Muslim Extremists and terrorists outright (because, reasons).
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Would anyone call a Jew a "Yom Kippur Worshiper" or a Muslim a "Ramadan Worshiper"?

Yes.
Finsbury Park attack: Roses for Ramadan worshippers
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40343485

Afghanistan suicide bomber kills Eid worshippers at mosque, police say – video
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/oct/26/afghanistan-bomber-eid-mosque-video

Homeless couple attacks synagogue worshippers in Buenos Aires
https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/homeless-couple-attacks-synagogue-worshippers-in-buenos-aires

And the day before the bombings:
Tourists, Easter worshippers lament closure of Notre Dame
https://apnews.com/5f52cac492f84c0d9a2eb7858e040d72
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So it does not strike you as odd to use that phrase? It does not seem exceptionally coincidental that those two used it at essentially the same time in the same way?

You routinely, normally, hear people casually say, "yom kippur worshippers"? This is a normal, expected, not in any way unusual thing to you? And, it does not strike you as being even noticeable, let alone note-worthy?
 

Toxick

Splat

Then you're a weirdo*.


I've never heard any of those terms until now. The only one that doesn't sound like contrived horseshit to me is "synagogue worshipers" - in the context of "worshipers at a synagogue" All the rest don't strike my ear right.




That said - In context, none of those seem to be avoiding the use of other words.









* Not that that's a bad thing.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Bottom line, no one says "Easter worshippers." They may say "church goers" or "Christians" or "congregation", but no one ever has used the phrase "Easter goers".

Compared with the number of times the word "Muslim" was used, "Christian" would be the logical, reasonable, normal choice. There's a reason they chose a rarely-if-ever used phrase of "Easter worshippers" vice "Christian", because there's just no reason to use a never-before used phraseology - especially when two people used it simultaneously - than there was a reason to do so.

It's illogical to think anything else.

If Shapiro only used the phrase "Western civilization" and never once mentioned it was part of a cathedral, you'd have a point. As it stands, there's not much of a point there due to that.

Easter Worshippers is not only silly - it's inaccurate.

I don't know anyone who worships Easter.

Easter is simply a celebration of an event centered around Christ - the real focus of worship. Would anyone call a Jew a "Yom Kippur Worshiper" or a Muslim a "Ramadan Worshiper"?


Now, while I'm not personally outraged or offended at the use of this term, it's somewhat amusing in its vague stupidity and it's clearly an attempt at PC horseshit, by not naming Christians as such (for reasons I can surmise) in the same way he would never name Muslim Extremists and terrorists outright (because, reasons).
Good posts. T/Y.

While a silly term, wouldn't you agree that Obama and Clinton were actually highlighting the religious aspect of the attack by specifically mentioning it? Wouldn't it be much worse in terms of "what did the Dems do to piss me off today" if they didn't say anything whatsoever about Easter? I mean, who other than a Christian is an "Easter worshiper"?
Maybe so, but I doubt it.

What are chances that Obama, HRC, and others would use this artificial and ridiculous (and ridiculously insensitive) appellation independent of each other. My guess is, virtually nil. These tweets were coordinated political talking points that spoke absolutely not at all from the heart. Especially HRC and The Lightbringer, who have gone to great pains to tell us how important Christianity is to them.

We are pissed because it is so cynical of them. Say "Christian" or do us Christians a favor and be plain and avoid it completely. They're playing at "Solomon's Baby Solution" and failing. Revelation 3:16 comes to mind (interestingly, quite a sharp contrast to another of John's verses: John 3:16).

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

TCROW

Well-Known Member
in the same way he would never name Muslim Extremists and terrorists outright (because, reasons).

The reason Moslem Extremists wasn’t used is because it is not accurate.

Moslem Fundamentalists is the correct term.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
Hmm. Had NEVER EVER heard or seen these uses. So the "AP stylebook" strikes again, eh?

I lived for quite a few years in a Muslim country and NEVER heard this used.

I have no qualms about the use in the JTA article as it was describing the location of the worshipers.

Maybe it's a fault of the imprecise nature of the American version of the English language. In any event, if this is true this "Easter worshiper" thing is a new edition and an unwelcome one.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
The reason Moslem Extremists wasn’t used is because it is not accurate.

Moslem Fundamentalists is the correct term.
I would beg to differ (perhaps, only slightly). I know (of) Muslims who are quite fundamental yet not extremists.

So my preferred term would be first: yes, Muslim Extremist and a distant second: Muslim Fundamentalist Extremist.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
I would beg to differ (perhaps, only slightly). I know (of) Muslims who are quite fundamental yet not extremists.

So my preferred term would be first: yes, Muslim Extremist and a distant second: Muslim Fundamentalist Extremist.

--- End of line (MCP)

I don’t agree at all. Moslem Fundamentalists have a proclivity to kill the unbelievers. This is NOT the extreme based on their teaching. It is absolutely a fundamental part of their faith.

There is a tendency to use the word “extremist” to water down the fact that they want to kill unbelievers for no other reason than the fact they are unbelievers.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I don’t agree at all. Moslem Fundamentalists have a proclivity to kill the unbelievers. This is NOT the extreme based on their teaching. It is absolutely a fundamental part of their faith.

There is a tendency to use the word “extremist” to water down the fact that they want to kill unbelievers for no other reason than the fact they are unbelievers.
In western culture - Judeo-Christian centric as we are - wanting to kill others for thinking differently is considered a rather extreme position, reserved for Muslims and Progressives, generally, but also for old-school Democrats like the ones who did not want to give up slavery, instituted Jim Crow laws, fought against the civil rights legislation, etc., and believe black people are inherently inferior and just as good dead.

The mainstream does not find this a "fundamentalist" position, but "extremist".
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So it does not strike you as odd to use that phrase? It does not seem exceptionally coincidental that those two used it at essentially the same time in the same way?

You routinely, normally, hear people casually say, "yom kippur worshippers"? This is a normal, expected, not in any way unusual thing to you? And, it does not strike you as being even noticeable, let alone note-worthy?

I literally said it was a silly term a few posts ago.

The only coincidental thing is the same use of the term by a few politicians. My guess is a PR team came up with it and used it.

The funny (or sad) thing is, had they not said anything, would the right be pissed for not saying anything?



You folks are absolutely making a mountain out of a mole hill. One could look at the tweets and say "wow, they highlighted the tragedy took place on Easter of all days.", but then again, some folks could say "but they used a term no one uses and we need to discuss that term (I think Toxic said something about semantics arguments when talking about Melania?), in length, for awhile."

This same level of argument was no where to be found when Trump said "at least 138 million" were killed or when he didn't mention anything about religion. This same level of pissed-off-ness was no where to be found when The Washington Times said it 5 years ago.

Oh yea, then criticized Obama and Clinton for it:


The right is frequently exhausted after pointing out all the times the left is outraged over something so trivial and silly, and yet here we are. Bitching, not because Obama, Clinton, and whomever, ignored the tragic bombings, but because they included a phrase that "no one uses". Amazing stuff.
 

TCROW

Well-Known Member
In western culture - Judeo-Christian centric as we are - wanting to kill others for thinking differently is considered a rather extreme position, reserved for Muslims and Progressives, generally, but also for old-school Democrats like the ones who did not want to give up slavery, instituted Jim Crow laws, fought against the civil rights legislation, etc., and believe black people are inherently inferior and just as good dead.

The mainstream does not find this a "fundamentalist" position, but "extremist".

That’s all fine and well. But in Islam, this is fundamental and not extremism.
 

Toxick

Splat
The reason Moslem Extremists wasn’t used is because it is not accurate.

Moslem Fundamentalists is the correct term.

Fundamentalists, extremists, terrorists.... My point was that Obama was reluctant refused to refer to them as Moslems at all.

That was my point - not to bandy about the reference to their behavior - which, by the way, is extremist, I would imagine, even by their own definition. There is literally nothing more extreme than mass fatalities.
 

Toxick

Splat
That’s all fine and well. But in Islam, this is fundamental and not extremism.


Fundamentalism and extremism are not mutually exclusive.



In fact, they often go hand in hand when describing zealous fanatical behavior.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The only coincidental thing is the same use of the term by a few politicians. My guess is a PR team came up with it and used it.

Now we're getting somewhere. You agree it is not a normal term, and that it probably came from some kind of specific choice made (your guess being a PR team).

That's the same thing others are saying. That it was a choice made to say it that way vice another way - the common phrasing of "Christians".

Why do you think they made the choice to word it this unusual way?

The funny (or sad) thing is, had they not said anything, would the right be pissed for not saying anything?

Personally, no. They are past their 15 minutes and should go away from public declarations.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That’s all fine and well. But in Islam, this is fundamental and not extremism.

I would say that's perspective. You seem to agree by using the clarifying-phrase "in Islam".

To the people reporting, it is extremist. To the religion itself, it is fundamentalist.

I agree with @Toxick that the two are not mutually-exclusive.
 
Top