American Christianity’s White-Supremacy Problem

[seer]

Let's see the quote.

I am a Nationalist, but that is not race specific. You could be brown, black, yellow or purple and believe that we should put the needs of our citizens first.

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people) especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

[seer]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

I never said I was a White Nationalist Shuny, stop lying...

[Cow Poke]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

You really need to use the quote function, because I don't think anybody here trusts your memory or your representation of what he actually said.

[RumTumTugger]

Remember seer claims to be a 'White Nationalist.'

nope I suspect he said Nationalist you added the White so you could dishonestly assassinate his character Apologize

[Cow Poke]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

You would be best off either providing the actual quote, or admitting you can't. Right now, you're stooping to a new low.

[RumTumTugger]

I have never seen him make any such claim. That's a pretty serious charge which you need to either back up, or retract and apologize.

you forget the Anti Trumpers in teh media always adds White to "Nationalist" to lie about people who love their country.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's literally blood libel. That the term itself was introduced later does not make it magically not blood libel,

No it is not "literally blood libel". You clearly have no idea as to what you are writing about and appear to making it all up as you go along to suit your own purposes.

I suggest you do some serious background reading on this topic to inform yourself. You could start with Dan Cohn-Sherbok's The Crucified Jew.

just as transgenders have existed for a long time before the term was invented. Etc.

An entirely irrelevant red herring that has no bearing whatsoever on this specific topic.

[RumTumTugger]

You would be best off either providing the actual quote, or admitting you can't. Right now, you're stooping to a new low.

I remember the discussion I remember something shuny and the anti trumpers on this board dishonestly likened it to White Nationalism so they could lie about him.

[oxmixmudd]

But in your example I would have directly benefited from stolen money. That is not my case, or probably yours. So it would be specific to particular a case. You can't generalize. Which you did: We are responsible for the legacy of what was done, the impact of it. No we are not all responsible for a legacy that neither we or our ancestors had any part in.

Instead of trying to provide a counter to an argument I'm not making, would it not make more sense to just answer the basic question honestly and then let me move on from there? My intent in asking that question was simply to establish that it is possible to be obligated by what our ancestors have done. Whether you or i are in a situation where such an obligation exists is an issue for further discussion. But to this point you've argued we are never responsible for what our ancestors did. Clearly, that is not always the case.

[seer]

Instead of trying to provide a counter to an argument I'm not making, would it not make more sense to just answer the basic question honestly and then let me move on from there? My intent in asking that question was simply to establish that it is possible to be obligated by what our ancestors have done. Whether you or i are in a situation where such an obligation exists is an issue for further discussion. But to this point you've argued we are never responsible for what our ancestors did. Clearly, that is not always the case.

I said already that if I personally benefited fro stolen monies, it probably would be moral to give it back to the original owner. And I never said 'never' - but in the context of this particular discussion, no I am not responsible. You said in that post:We are responsible for the legacy of what was done...That is what I was disagreeing with.

[Gondwanaland]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

Where?

[Gondwanaland]

I am a Nationalist, but that is not race specific. You could be brown, black, yellow or purple and believe that we should put the needs of our citizens first.

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people) especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

That's about what I figured would be the case, and wholly unsurprised to see the dishonesty by Shuny.

[Cow Poke]

That's about what I figured would be the case, and wholly unsurprised to see the dishonesty by Shuny.

I'm actually disappointed - I knew Shuny could be a nut, but I didn't see him as dishonest.

[Gondwanaland]

No it is not "literally blood libel".

Yes, it is.

You clearly have no idea as to what you are writing about and appear to making it all up as you go along to suit your own purposes.

I suggest you do some serious background reading on this topic to inform yourself. You could start with Dan Cohn-Sherbok's The Crucified Jew.

That's nice, but does not change that it is literally blood libel. Not surprised to see you carry water for anti-semites though.

An entirely irrelevant red herring that has no bearing whatsoever on this specific topic.

That you cannot grasp the analogy indicates your lack of critical thinking abilities.

[oxmixmudd]

I said already that if I personally benefited fro stolen monies, it probably would be moral to give it back to the original owner. And I never said 'never' - but in the context of this particular discussion, no I am not responsible. You said in that post:We are responsible for the legacy of what was done...That is what I was disagreeing with.

You said that after I asked the question 4 times, with the 4th time noting your multiple attempts evading the question. You make it sound like you said that before I asked the question or presented the moral example, which simply isnt true.

My original post in this line of discussion was responding to you saying this:

Source: seer

.. And I am not responsible for what others did in the past, just as you are not respobsible for what your ancestors did.

© Copyright Original Source

That is an absolute statement that simply and clearly is not true as an absolute - as you have since my response admitted.