Ethnocentric Christianity at its Finest

[Siberian Husky]

https://thatvideosite.com/view/2178.html

reminds me of a few on this board..

discuss...

[steve jones]

Actually, I find this clip quite encouraging.

The way the interviewer handled that woman was very appropriate, and its what every sane person is thinking. In the UK, they dont have the bottle to stand up to these nutcases - they give them jobs as teachers instead! And if you dare to critise anyone with religious motivation, then you're tarred and feathered.

So yeah, I find it encouraging that people in the US are truely allowed the freedom of speech to tell these nutters their name with knobs on.

But other than, I think she's hot! 

SJ

[cziffra]

Actually, I find this clip quite encouraging.

The way the interviewer handled that woman was very appropriate, and its what every sane person is thinking. In the UK, they dont have the bottle to stand up to these nutcases - they give them jobs as teachers instead! And if you dare to critise anyone with religious motivation, then you're tarred and feathered.

So yeah, I find it encouraging that people in the US are truely allowed the freedom of speech to tell these nutters their name with knobs on.

But other than, I think she's hot! 

SJ

If only they did it on a larger scale...


as for the appearance of the female, she just looks completely insane

[steve jones]

I think there is definately some horse DNA somewhere in that one, long with a few dozen generations of inbreeding!

SJ

[steveie986]

God (no pun intended) she's hot. I want to caress her lovely God-fearing bottom and make her moan Hallelujah when she comes (indeed, I have a similar fantasy about Ann Coulter).

That aside, however, Westboro Baptist Church is clearly a cult that is much more radical than even the most questionable fringes of the religious right. Even Jerry Falwell has publicly denounced them as "first-class nuts." So in that sense, comparing certain members of this board to the Westboro folks is a hyperbole that is perhaps a little heavy-handed, to say the least.

[prometheus]

The interviewer is insulting that woman. That is a very bad thing. He started off with the wrong question and then he didn't even have the woman answer.

I must say I closed the video the moment the interviewer started to throw insults rather than critical questions or arguments against that woman. I couldn't stand both of them.

I am so glad we don't have people like that in my country. That goes for both the incapable interviewer and the religious nut.

[stevie]

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

THIS VID IS FUNKING INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!

hahahahaha, im on the side of the interviewers

so your family member dies at war, and people like that show up at the funeral protesting?

what

UZI TIME

[6ft 4]

Prometheus is right (as usual)

It would have been so easy to rip this woman to shreds; the interviewer merely randomly starts insulting the woman for no reason; she goes back thinking what she is doing is perfectly alright

[prometheus]

The interviewer should have tried to dissect her insane views. Try to figure out where the whole idea comes from. That is his job. He doesn't need to give his opinion. That is not his job. I mean, why does he even get that woman on the show?

And if he wants to critisize her then he should have tried a more technical approach. It would probably have failed but he should have attempted it. If you look back he starts insulting and then tries to turn that into an point by asking a question. Actually he tries to interrupt her right after she finished her first words.

I mean, who wants to know his opinion on the opinion of a nut? Like we can't figure out something is really wrong with her ourselves.

Furthermore, why is she on tv anyway? Is she really important? Or do they just put a random nut on tv and then start trash-talking after that person uttered half a sentence?

This reminds me about O'Reilly who put people on his show not to hear their opinions but to trash-talk them. Apperently that is what the Fox audience wants to see.

Stupid religious nut and very poor journalism.

[maul]

Haha the whole point of Hannity and Colmes is their opinions, Prometheus. Have you even watched it before? Infact that's the point of all the highly rated shows on CNN and Fox. Anyway, I watched it when it actually aired and was surprised they didn't rip her a new one. That lady doesn't need to have her opinions dissected, she needs to be thrown off a bridge.

[arensky]

Interesting, the way this crazy broad transformed these two cynical and contrived journalists into actual people with real human reactions. I think more people like her should stand up for what they believe in! They will be shunned, instead of tolerated. 

BTW, their "church" is merely a tax dodge for the family. I have seen this before; she and her clan are the worst sort of twisted hypocrites imaginable.

[prometheus]

You mean if I watch those Fox programs? I can't receive Fox here.

All that I know about Fox indicates that they have a sickening style of journalism. Like you say; apperently the point of the program is their opinions. Maybe you find that funny but to me that's just awful. I want to hear the opinions of leading intellectuals and representatives of social movements/organisations. Not those of random nuts and crazy interviewers. Then I want the interviewers to give them a hard time with sharp and witty questions.

And yes, the guy seems to hold back after his first outrage. So maybe that is why you were suprised. Actually, it didn't take me long before I had to close the video because I couldn't take the way she was being interviewed.

I guess if you watch Fox all day you become insensitve for things like this. But that is just as much part of ethnocentricity. It has been proven that people who watch Fox have a distorted view of reality. They do not know the facts because their programs are so suggestive.

[gilad]

they showed a lot more respect to her than she and her kook community showed to the dead and their families. As memminger said that's the nature of those interviewers, they're not there to intellectualise but to entertain and bring people maybe a different angle on news, i dont know. i thought it was funny.

[maul]

Those shows are actually a small part of the whole channel, so don't be judging it when you said yourself you haven't even watched it... and I don't watch Fox all day, punkass. People who watch any one news program or read any one newspaper have a distorted view because everything is biased. Except for C-SPAN, possibly. BTW Fox News usually has both sides of the spectrum presented. Hannity = hardcore republican, Colmes = hardcore democrat. I don't agree with either of them though a majority of the time because they are both partisan hacks.

[prometheus]

Maybe that explains the Democratic deficit in the US. I mean with shows like that being the only highly rated interview programs, as memminger claimed, you can't have a proper centralised representative democracy. Journalists need to realise their essential role in the working of a healthy democracy. The same goes for the people that watch those programs.

[Bob]

I only watched part.  (dialup)

I had a parent speaking like that lady once.  Right in front of me, in person... "serpent of the lord... demons and demigods..."   Not about protesting things.  She had concerns about what I was teaching and if that went along with her religious beliefs.  They moved though but it was a memorable teaching moment. 

[steve jones]

Prometheus is right (as usual)

It would have been so easy to rip this woman to shreds; the interviewer merely randomly starts insulting the woman for no reason; she goes back thinking what she is doing is perfectly alright

Do you think that a person of this mentality can be reasoned with?

I felt that the interviewer was well within his right to get the hump with nutter. Yes, he could have tried to reason with her, but from one comment she made, that had already occured on a prior interview. This only said what EVERYONE is thinking, and for that he gets my thumbs up.

Its a bit like saying:

"I was attacked by a rabid dog"

"Did you try to reason with him?"

"Errrr, no, it was a rabid, blood thirst animal so I tried to kick it"

"Why? Does violence not breed violence?"

etc


SJ

[prometheus]

No no, you guys don't seem to understand that what the woman says has nothing to do with how the interviewer should react. The interviewer needs to do his job. Sure, in a way it is justified to insult this woman, in a way. But the interviewer has an obligation to the viewers and to the institution of being a journalist.

Either this person has something important to say in which case the interviewer should ask questions. Or the person has nothing important to say in which case the interviewers shouldn't give this person a stage on national tv.

So either try to get some sense out of this person or put someone else on tv.

[jas]

No no, you guys don't seem to understand that what the woman says has nothing to do with how the interviewer should react. The interviewer needs to do his job. Sure, in a way it is justified to insult this woman, in a way. But the interviewer has an obligation to the viewers and to the institution of being a journalist.

Either this person has something important to say in which case the interviewer should ask questions. Or the person has nothing important to say in which case the interviewers shouldn't give this person a stage on national tv.

So either try to get some sense out of this person or put someone else on tv.

I partly agree with this. I've never watched an American news programme before, and I was surprised at how he launched in there. Rather than have a civilised debate it turned into a mudslinging fest. Are all American newsreaders so un-objective? I can't see Trevor McDonald doing that!

However, I also agree with whoever said that there's no reasoning with a religious fanatic. Even if the interviewer had been the picture of restraint and decorum she wouldn't have let him finish his questions if she didn't like them. It was shameless the way she hedged the one about her own sins after all that preaching about how the people who died had it coming to them. She's a sick, raving hypocrite. Just listening to people like her makes me furious! I'm not surprised the reviewer got arsey with her, it would take Herculean restraint not to and he's only human.

There are no people on earth as hateful and blind as religious fanatics.

reminds me of a few on this board..

There's no one here that bad.

Jas

[steve jones]

No no, you guys don't seem to understand that what the woman says has nothing to do with how the interviewer should react. The interviewer needs to do his job. Sure, in a way it is justified to insult this woman, in a way. But the interviewer has an obligation to the viewers and to the institution of being a journalist.

Either this person has something important to say in which case the interviewer should ask questions. Or the person has nothing important to say in which case the interviewers shouldn't give this person a stage on national tv.

So either try to get some sense out of this person or put someone else on tv.

True, you have a point.

But dont you think that some issue transcend a mere job title?

If I worked at McDonalds and Bin Laden came to the window to order McBush meal, Id be oh so tempted to slip a greeny into his burger! Sure, I'd be abusing my privilidge as a McDonald's operative, but I think Id be able to sleep at night! 

Fortunately I dont work at McDonalds, and even if I did, I highly doubt Id be bumping into Big B (they dont serve alahl food do they?). But the point still stands that maybe under some extreme cases we are allowed to drop our guard.

Im not sure if this is one of those time mind. Yes, the guy could have attempted a reasonable conversation with the woman. But lets not forget that this didnt appear to be their first meeting - she eluded to the fact that they'd spoke on previous occassions. Maybe he was more professional that time and payed the price?

Who knows, but its a funny (in a scary kind of way!) clip all the same.

SJ

[Siberian Husky]

The interviewer is insulting that woman. That is a very bad thing. He started off with the wrong question and then he didn't even have the woman answer.

I must say I closed the video the moment the interviewer started to throw insults rather than critical questions or arguments against that woman. I couldn't stand both of them.

I am so glad we don't have people like that in my country. That goes for both the incapable interviewer and the religious nut.

i guess i should have made myself clear..

im no fan of fox news, but this never was intended to be a journalist vs interviewee debate, i agree with yo on the journalist's poor sense of mature conversation, its obvious anytime someone insults another in a conversation the conversation has gone to ***..

BUT..

"I am so glad we don't have people like that in my country. That goes for both the incapable interviewer and the religious nut."

you were going good up untill here...you just fell in the melting-pot of enthnocentrism..dont pretend like your feces doesnt stink.. .here lemme join you in that melting-pot..everybody..lets be ethnocentric

mexicans smell the best...weeeeeee

[maul]

The interviewer needs to do his job. Sure, in a way it is justified to insult this woman, in a way. But the interviewer has an obligation to the viewers and to the institution of being a journalist.

So either try to get some sense out of this person or put someone else on tv.

You just don't get it do you? They aren't journalists. They are the exact opposite. Journalists simply arrange and present facts. Hannity and Colmes are news "analysts" (no they aren't therapists for this psycho) who present their opinions on certain issues. Not everything is black and white, bud. Let's all just have a bunch of talking heads on TV with no opinion on anything, right? You are extremely closed minded and dull.

[Siberian Husky]

You just don't get it do you? They aren't journalists. They are the exact opposite. Journalists simply arrange and present facts. Hannity and Colmes are news "analysts" (no they aren't therapists for this psycho) who present their opinions on certain issues. Not everything is black and white, bud. Let's all just have a bunch of talking heads on TV with no opinion on anything, right? You are extremely closed minded and dull.

now now..lets not get too teste or anything...

i respect alot of prometheus's posts and i will go as far to say that he is enlightening and for the most part does an excellent job of passing judgement using reason..but he sometiems comes off as holier than thou..which is somewhat bothersome..nonetheless..i shall end this post with...everybody is different..that usually softens the blow

[prometheus]

You are right that american style telivision, journalism and politics, both the good and the bad parts of it, are beginning to pour into 'my country' and that no american is to be blamed for that. Plus 'we' have our own problems.

[Siberian Husky]

wait what?

[prometheus]

You presumed that my comment had something to do with ethnicity, as you put it, but it was just my honest feeling. The chistian nuts here are not hateful, yet, and the journalism hasn't degraded, yet. Maybe you could find some muslim teenager that want to say hateful things. I remember that someone like that was let on tv. That person was actually interviewed in a serious way. Actually, the words were put into his mouth. The fact that a journalist let this guy, a totally insignificant person, say these things on national tv was frouwned upon.

If you want to see a video of it I could probably find it. Maybe I could even give you a translation.

As of recent we also have a tv station run by a very rich guy, just like Fox. Actually one of the people, I won't call them journalists because they were totally inexperienced and incompatable,  in the news program, news american style" according to themselves, insulted someone. That guy got slammed for insulting someone.
The program got very poor ratings and has been dropped for a while. News american style failed, as for now.

As for the religious extremists, only a few days ago they decided to allow woman to join their party. Now I stronly dislike these people and I think their party should been banned because they still do not allow woman in active politics but these people would never say something hateful.


As for other problems. Journalists are too befriended with politicians, lawyers and judges and business people. I don't know about this issue in the US.

As for problems unique to my country. It is a monarchy, major flaw. Actually the day of national celeberation is only a week away and again the issue of changing the constitution and making the monarchy officially cerinomal hs been raised and is now public debate again.

The point being, my point wasn't based on conscious ethnocentrism. My views on journalism and religion aren't based on my ethnicity.

[tac-tics]

She has a creepy-as-hell smile.

[Siberian Husky]

You presumed that my comment had something to do with ethnicity, as you put it, but it was just my honest feeling. The chistian nuts here are not hateful, yet, and the journalism hasn't degraded, yet. Maybe you could find some muslim teenager that want to say hateful things. I remember that someone like that was let on tv. That person was actually interviewed in a serious way. Actually, the words were put into his mouth. The fact that a journalist let this guy, a totally insignificant person, say these things on national tv was frouwned upon.

?

My primary response was to your comment about "not having individuals like that in your country," which really threw your entire opinion, which was a good one, out the window. I seriously doubt you know the entire collective populous that makes up your country individually to make such an assumption, so i took it as an ethnocentric blow from one group of peoples to another. Sure America has a bad reputation for its media coverage, but anyone in the right mind would know that television programing is not a direct reflection of everyone they represent, just like president bush isnt approved of by more than half of the U.S. population, yet he is still the figure head.

Also i did not want to turn this into any ethnic debate. To reiterate myself and hopefully drill this across. My primary reason for posting that video was to put that woman on display, because in all honesty, it was funny/disturbing.

Religious elitist like that do bring me to a chuckle because of how absurd their ideals are, but i also think it is a very important issue, because the practice of passing such harsh judgment is unhealthy and really plagues the entity they represent, in the case, Christianity.

There are extremists in any group, religious or not, but Christianity sometimes really must take the cake, or perhaps i believe that because of my immdediate sphere of influence and how it is infected with these sorts.

An eternal damnation because of sexual orientation, decisions, or spiritual belief? ...I find myself vomiting in a toilet after entertaining the idea of such...

and to be honest...she reminds me of an amplified version of some Christian followers on this forum

[prometheus]

but anyone in the right mind would know that television programing is not a direct reflection of everyone they represent, just like president bush isnt approved of by more than half of the U.S. population, yet he is still the figure head.

That was also one of my points. The problem is that most americans don't know this.

[maul]

... and how the hell do you know what most Americans know and what they don't? Quit pulling stuff out of your ass and acting as if it's fact.

[prometheus]

Sociological studies, of course it is true that part of the statement is my conclusion.

[maul]

You aren't intelligent. That's my conclusion.

[prometheus]

If you think people can't be intelligent when they don't agree with you...

Personally I find this a silly idea. Intelligence doesn't make people right. And being wrong doesn't make people non-intelligent.
There are tons of examples of very intelligent deluded people. Both harmless and dangerous. For example it would be very silly to propose that religious people are stupid because they believe in things and do not require proof or reason. I think you actually need to be smart to be able to do this. Think of Orwell's 'Double Think'. Surely that leads to stupid opinions but it requires a lot of intelligence.

Another example is Bobby Fischer. Probably one of the most intelligent people alive, at least in IQ, but mind numblind simple minded. Another chess example, Kasparov supports a silly new chronology theory, a harmess example. You need to be really intelligent to have an absolutely terrible opinion.

[bearzinthehood]

Oh look, it's fox news.  *puke*

[Siberian Husky]

That was also one of my points. The problem is that most americans don't know this.

im sorry but i cant help but get the impression that you feel you know more than you really do. You make asstounding, and for the most part, very logical points, but you really flush them down the toilet when you make outrageous assumptions based on what you barely know.

I know i wouldnt go so far as to state such blunt "factoids" about your country, simply because i dont live there. I feel you should really mind the same respect.

[musik_man]

I'd like to point out that Mr. Fag-hater is not a real Christian.  He considers himself a prophet and believes that anyone who does not support his particular cause will go to Hell.  Not very Biblical.

BTW oddly enough, he was a Civil-rights lawyer before he became a kook.

[timothy42b]

Do you have any evidence he does not believe the central tenets of the Christian faith?

Being an extremist does not rule out him being a Christian, much as I may disagree with his actions.  I have no doubt he believes the Nicene Creed, and must therefore be considered Christian.  He probably also believes a bunch of other stuff not taught in mainstream chruches, but that doesn't necessarily disqualify him. 

[musik_man]

During 1993–94 interviews with the Topeka Capital-Journal, four of Phelps' children asserted that their father's religious beliefs were either nonexistent to begin with or have dwindled down to nearly nothing since he became a Baptist; they claim that Westboro serves to enable a paraphilia of Phelps, wherein he is literally addicted to hatred (this statement would serve as the inspiration for the title of the book about Phelps' life). Two of his sons, Mark and Nate, claim that the church is actually a carefully planned cult that allows Phelps to see himself as a demigod, wielding absolute control over the lives of his family and congregants, essentially turning them into slaves that he can use for the sole purpose of gratifying his every whim and acting as the structure for his delusion that he is the only righteous man on Earth. [63] In 1995, Mark Phelps wrote a letter to the people of Topeka to this effect; it was run in the Topeka Capital-Journal. [64] The children's claim is partially backed up by B.H. McAllister, the Baptist minister who ordained Phelps. McAllister said in a 1993 interview that Phelps developed a delusion wherein he was one of the only people on Earth worthy of God's grace and that everyone else in the world was going to Hell, and that salvation or damnation could be directly obtained by either aligning with or opposing Phelps. Phelps maintains this belief to this day. [65]

This is blasphemy.  He is no Christian.

From wikipedia

[musik_man]

The interviewer is insulting that woman. That is a very bad thing. He started off with the wrong question and then he didn't even have the woman answer.

I must say I closed the video the moment the interviewer started to throw insults rather than critical questions or arguments against that woman. I couldn't stand both of them.

I am so glad we don't have people like that in my country. That goes for both the incapable interviewer and the religious nut.

Hannity and Colmes is pretty much the worst politcal debate show.  Hannity isn't all too bright, and Colmes... well... Colmes defies words...

[timothy42b]

McAllister said in a 1993 interview that Phelps developed a delusion wherein he was one of the only people on Earth worthy of God's grace and that everyone else in the world was going to Hell, and that salvation or damnation could be directly obtained by either aligning with or opposing Phelps. Phelps maintains this belief to this day. [65][/i]

This is blasphemy.  He is no Christian.

From wikipedia

I dunno.  He is an ordained Baptist minister who believes in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.  He thinks other people's faith is not sufficiently strong to save them, unless they are smart enough to listen to him.  I'm still not seeing where this makes him not a Christian, despite other beliefs that seem a bit wacko.  Time was when most denominations felt they had the only true path, and a lot of them still think so. 

[rob47]

Has anyone seen the Rob Zombie movie "House of 1000 Corpses"? This  family reminds me of the family from that movie

[jas]

You are right that american style telivision, journalism and politics, both the good and the bad parts of it, are beginning to pour into 'my country' and that no american is to be blamed for that. Plus 'we' have our own problems.

Where are you from?

Hannity and Colmes is pretty much the worst politcal debate show.  Hannity isn't all too bright, and Colmes... well... Colmes defies words...

Heh. I'd love to see her talking to Jeremy Paxman. That would definitely be a conversation worth hearing.

[prometheus]

The Netherlands.

[pianowelsh]

If Phelps truely claims that he is in anyway worthy of the Grace of God atall He has completely missed the point of the gospel and therefore it is unlikely that He has a living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In putting forward a proposition that only people who are smart enough to listen to him can be saved then He is effectively setting himself up as one who is over Christ and is subtley making the claim that he is more important than the word of God. This is obviously very far from the gospel. Without knowing this man or much about him I would have to ask serious questions as to whether he really represents Chistianity - my gut reaction says he does not. In fact it sounds to me rather more like he is a really unsubtle false teacher of the kind the new testament warns about.  This aside The interviewers duty is not to mock or berate or bring down their guest but to extrapolate concise and emotive responses from the guest to the questions which they have prepared to ask. Far too many interviewers these days take a sort of Jerry Springer attitude and let interviews turn into a free for all.  The is abominable and they should be sacked because the dont know how to get the best out of the air time and frankly they waste it.

[jas]

If Phelps truely claims that he is in anyway worthy of the Grace of God atall He has completely missed the point of the gospel and therefore it is unlikely that He has a living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In putting forward a proposition that only people who are smart enough to listen to him can be saved then He is effectively setting himself up as one who is over Christ and is subtley making the claim that he is more important than the word of God. This is obviously very far from the gospel. Without knowing this man or much about him I would have to ask serious questions as to whether he really represents Chistianity - my gut reaction says he does not. In fact it sounds to me rather more like he is a really unsubtle false teacher of the kind the new testament warns about. 

It's interesting that you're more offended by what you see as this guy's falsity than that insane woman's bloodlust.

This aside The interviewers duty is not to mock or berate or bring down their guest but to extrapolate concise and emotive responses from the guest to the questions which they have prepared to ask. Far too many interviewers these days take a sort of Jerry Springer attitude and let interviews turn into a free for all.  The is abominable and they should be sacked because the dont know how to get the best out of the air time and frankly they waste it.

This I do agree with, largely. But as I said in a previous post, it would take incredible control to keep calm with someone so clearly incapable of reason.

[pianowelsh]

Yes. His interviewing style is attrocious and frankly that interview should never have been aired In the UK it wouldnt be allowed. Ok Her views are not mainstream BUT people express marginal views on the airwaves all the time and there is supposed to be religious freedom that people can express their faith.  The argument is not whether her views are correct or not but whether in fact it was fair for her to be invited onto the show to be openly insulted and mocked - I for one do not feel that anyone should be treated in this way. However I dont condone the actions she took part in - they were twisted and grossly insensitive - possibly even criminal (I dont know enough about the specifics).  In Britain the media have a very clear stance on the right of the individual to respond and defend their point (if there are criminal investigations going on surrounding the case they are not allowed to give comment on the particulars) that to me seems fair?!

[prometheus]

Yes, I think outside the US comments like that woman made could be illegal.

Denying the holocaust(not sure if this actually included the Sinti and the Roma as well) is illegal is some countries. It seems that saying 9/11 was a good think will soon be illegal as well. That woman's god is the same one as OLB's god and they claim the same thing.

[donjuan]

hey where's pianistimo?? I want to hear what she has to say about this...

[maul]

prometheus, we have a thing called "free speech". Maybe you haven't heard of it.

[prometheus]

Free speech in Europe is not the same as free speech in the US. But this also depends on the particular country.