4 ms·

I need a citation to believe that a majority of (which states?) supported assassination and terrorism. In fact the presidents of both parties (Eisenhower and L

I need a citation to believe that a majority of (which states?) supported assassination and terrorism. In fact the presidents of both parties (Eisenhower and LBJ) signed legislation (two civil rights acts) in direct opposition of the Klan's goals. I'm not saying people need to agree with Eich, but it's an awful false equivalence to compare him to terrorists.

leereeves 11y ago
The people didn't support assassination and terrorism, in fact those helped bring down the KKK, but they did support the goal of white Protestant supremacy. At its height in the 1920s, before the KKK's downfall in scandal, "claimed Klan membership exceeded four million and comprised 20% of the adult white male population in many broad geographic regions, and 40% in some areas". (cited on Wikipedia). Klan member Edward L. Jackson was elected governor of Indiana, and "Although the full extent of the Klan's power was unknown at that time, it claimed that its members occupied more than half the seats in the Indiana General Assembly, and a large percentage of the local offices in Indiana." (Wikipedia again, but uncited) Regarding Eich, while I don't think he himself supports violence, it's not such a huge leap to violence from a platform whose roots are in the Biblical verses: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)
- humanrebar 11y ago
  The roots of the Bible are much more clearly: Romans 12 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Christians who love the Bible know this passage by heart. Very few care to memorize the (no-longer-followed) legal code of Israel. The ignorant choose to take the Bible out of context to justify their hate. Please don't make the same mistake.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    I meant opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, not Christianity in general.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that sexual immorality is harmful. It's a sticky proposition for one to call herself a Christian and reject Christ's teachings. It's stickier yet for someone who doesn't claim Christ at all to define what Christianity entails or what good or bad Christians do.
      - leereeves 11y ago
        I don't want to debate theology; I meant only that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and it's easy to see how repeating and emphasizing that verse encourages violence. It's not much harder to see how defining homosexuals as "immoral" or simply as a lesser class of people not entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals also encourages violence.
        humanrebar 11y ago
        It's impossible to talk about what's moral and not without getting theological. The Bible defines homosexuals as immoral. It's not ambiguous about that. But it says everyone is immoral. And it says all rights are given by God, not by men. And, partly because of this, it also says, very clearly, that senseless violence is despicable. That is to say, at least part the problem is with theology, or at least bad theology. And Mozilla, perhaps unintentionally, has taken a theological position by removing Eich. Or at least it thinks it can't productively tolerate certain people. And some of those people are good people with genuinely held religious views. So, yeah, Mozilla is getting some blowback. And, no, it's not because being opposed to same sex marriage is the same ridiculous theology of the KKK.
        leereeves 11y ago
- jazzyk 11y ago
  The same Leviticus who claims eating shellfish and birds is an abomination? "and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. 12'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you. 13'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,…"
  - leereeves 11y ago
    Yes, and almost no one pays any attention to the rest of Leviticus anymore -- only to the verses about homosexuality. More importantly, the second verse encourages those who hate homosexuals to kill them, and I hope the overwhelming majority of us can agree that's not acceptable.

leereeves 11y ago

The people didn't support assassination and terrorism, in fact those helped bring down the KKK, but they did support the goal of white Protestant supremacy. At its height in the 1920s, before the KKK's downfall in scandal, "claimed Klan membership exceeded four million and comprised 20% of the adult white male population in many broad geographic regions, and 40% in some areas". (cited on Wikipedia). Klan member Edward L. Jackson was elected governor of Indiana, and "Although the full extent of the Klan's power was unknown at that time, it claimed that its members occupied more than half the seats in the Indiana General Assembly, and a large percentage of the local offices in Indiana." (Wikipedia again, but uncited) Regarding Eich, while I don't think he himself supports violence, it's not such a huge leap to violence from a platform whose roots are in the Biblical verses: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

humanrebar 11y ago
The roots of the Bible are much more clearly: Romans 12 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Christians who love the Bible know this passage by heart. Very few care to memorize the (no-longer-followed) legal code of Israel. The ignorant choose to take the Bible out of context to justify their hate. Please don't make the same mistake.
- leereeves 11y ago
  I meant opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage, not Christianity in general.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that sexual immorality is harmful. It's a sticky proposition for one to call herself a Christian and reject Christ's teachings. It's stickier yet for someone who doesn't claim Christ at all to define what Christianity entails or what good or bad Christians do.
    - leereeves 11y ago
      I don't want to debate theology; I meant only that the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, and it's easy to see how repeating and emphasizing that verse encourages violence. It's not much harder to see how defining homosexuals as "immoral" or simply as a lesser class of people not entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals also encourages violence.
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        It's impossible to talk about what's moral and not without getting theological. The Bible defines homosexuals as immoral. It's not ambiguous about that. But it says everyone is immoral. And it says all rights are given by God, not by men. And, partly because of this, it also says, very clearly, that senseless violence is despicable. That is to say, at least part the problem is with theology, or at least bad theology. And Mozilla, perhaps unintentionally, has taken a theological position by removing Eich. Or at least it thinks it can't productively tolerate certain people. And some of those people are good people with genuinely held religious views. So, yeah, Mozilla is getting some blowback. And, no, it's not because being opposed to same sex marriage is the same ridiculous theology of the KKK.
        leereeves 11y ago
jazzyk 11y ago
The same Leviticus who claims eating shellfish and birds is an abomination? "and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. 12'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you. 13'These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,…"
- leereeves 11y ago
  Yes, and almost no one pays any attention to the rest of Leviticus anymore -- only to the verses about homosexuality. More importantly, the second verse encourages those who hate homosexuals to kill them, and I hope the overwhelming majority of us can agree that's not acceptable.