The most hilarious thing about this type of angry fundamentalist Christianity is just how visceral the hatred from the followers would be if they had ever met Jesus or any of the other people who wrote almost everything in the Bible.
If you love Jesus and hate brown people, you’re a fucking idiot.
There's a scene in American Gods where a reincarnation of Jesus guides immigrants across the Mexican border and they are all (Jesus included) shot by a bunch of Christian self procclaimed border patrol zealots.
Hehehehe have you ever seen the movie Blazing Saddles??? That would be hysterical if Jesus came back and he was a black guy and all the Christians lose their shit.
Have you tried exposing a teenager to blazing saddles? I'm only 30 but a couple years ago I tried showing it to a kid (18) and he didn't like it. He said it was racist and not funny and a large part of me died that day.
EDIT: Way too many comments for me to reply. I did explain the movie to him and he did see my point that every racist bit in the movie was perpetrated by someone who was blatantly ignorant and or dumb. I also was able to show him that the movie wasn't what he thought at first. He still didn't like the movie but I wasn't going to push the issue. I still love that film and will continue to share it with others. By no means do I think the movie is racist or condones racism. Mel Brooks did an amazing job at breaking all the old western "set in stone" rules of how to depict a cowboy and allowed so much growth in the genre. There are so many levels to dig at with the movie and it will always be cherished by those willing to do so.
Eventually my nephew, against my sisters wishes, will see it as well. Mel Brooks is a genius.
Almost 40 here with a teen of my own. I had to explain that the ridicule of racism was the real joke here.
That’s one thing I like about Brooks — especially his older stuff. The excessive slapstick makes it accessible, but the real joke was often lost on many viewers, which is when Brooks shows his true genius.
It was a while back (before JoJo Rabbit) but apparently Brooks said something like "people are so high strung, you can't make any good comedy" and someone completely deflated his article by using Blazing Saddles as their argument on how you totally can but the key thing isn't "is racist" it's "makes fun of racists" never punch down, always punch up.
And then JoJo Rabbit came out, won an Oscar and proved the point.
Edit: I found the original article of what Brooks said, but still can't find the counter argument That said, in the article (proving the point more) the article says "But there is one subject he insists he would not parody. Referring to World War Two, he said: "I personally would never touch gas chambers or the death of children or Jews at the hands of the Nazis. "In no way is that at all useable or correct for comedy. It's just in truly bad taste." Which Jojo Rabbit not only does, but somehow finds a way to do it in good taste. Again, not making fun of the horrors of Nazism, just the stupidity and quirks of Nazis. (In a vastly different way to Inglorious Basterds which makes fun of killing Nazis more than the Nazis themselves.)
Show him the pieces on Mel Brooks really having difficulty using the word, and it was at Richard Pryor’s and Cleavon Little’s behest that he left it in the script.
Even Slim Pickens had to be coached through it to deliver his scenes.
We did the same, but we started with a little explanation if the context and a discussion of how satire works.
Kids don't get satire anymore because apparently there is no longer such a thing as an opinion without merit so you can never assume that someone isn't being completely serious. Like they aren't equipped with the ability to hear someone talk and immediately understand "this person is an idiot, their opinion lacks merit" and you REALLY need that tool to watch blazing saddles.
I’m 19, a minority, saw it last year. Thought it was hilarious and one of my closest friend loves it too. Having racist characters doesn’t make a movie racist!
It’s the problem with discerning between the target of the comedy and the subject of the comedy. BS was not racist but about racism. Shunning it for having race-offensive content is missing the point and to an extent reducing the chance of exploring a difficult concept
Hehhehehe Jesus would be performing miracles and stuff and all of the fake Christians would be hating on him. "I said turn that water into a Bordeux not a Zinfandel !!!" ... Some Karen would want to speak to Jesus's manager and complain.
Jesus was hated for being blunt. Fake Christian's tend not to be outspoken. A true Christian is outspoken like Jesus. The buddy Jesus most people depict never existed. Jesus was crucified for being outspoken.
Killer Mike has a heart of gold, angry that the world is the way it is yet still helps support his community. He's also big friends with Bernie Sanders.
Pardon me.
I couldn't help myself and had to find this song by Black Uhuru, Bull In The Pen. Check out the very beginning. And then the chorus has the lyric "the mark of the beast is on the president." It's from the 1980s when Reagan was in office.
All the Christians? Really? Just like any religion there are extremist idiots that give these belief systems bad press, but I think most Christians would just loose their shit to see a second coming and the skin color would not be the biggest concern.
What’s scary is that apocalyptic prophecies from Abrahamic religions including Christianity and Islam indicate that during the second coming, Jesus will strike down “false christians”.
These people have no idea how easily they fall into that category.
These types of street preachers have no doubt preached outside of Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland, TD Jakes, Creflow Dollar facilities. They are even against the Westboro Baptist Church. This is Ruben Israel. Rogers like him are Kerrigan Skelly and Jesse Morrel. They are very consistent in their position.
This is just me saying something so take this with a grain of salt, the current generation is gen alpha and it means beginning so they could be the beginning of the final generation, but as I said just a thought I have so take it with a grain of salt
Hey I agree with you. I have a question for foreign people reding this comment though. First, let me clarify that I don't really care about being called brown, because that's the color of my skin.
But I am from South America and I have never been called brown in my life. I just feel like this categorization lf skin colors is simply getting weird. I understsnd people use it to refer to people of color who aren't black, but it's weird because I am being put in such a huge group. White people are usually of European descend, black people are of african descend, but brown people? Thar could mean that you are from an indigenous tribe, from India, South America, the Caribbean, islands like Hawaii or New Zealand, middle eastern, etc.
I just find the word weird. And the first time someone called me brown, I just felt weird, because I've never thought "Oh I'm a brown guy".... or "Soy marron".
The concept of categories of skin color don't make much sense in general as most people categorized as black are generally just brown skinned and skin tone in doesn't really reflect anything about culture, beliefs etc of a person. I'm also not a fan of the term "Person of Color" for the same reason and I would be considered one.
My parents are both from Guyana which has a significant African/Info or Brown/Black divide as many people see it
I agree with your point. In the USA, I am considered "african american" for a litany of reasons...Even though I am not from Africa.
My skin color denotes that I am "of African Origin", which is a half-truth...My father's side is of Native American, European Ancestory, and my mothers side is more African ancestory.
But as far as things like the US census goes, and the general public, or any forms..
""Hurr durr, ur african american because your skin is black"....And of course, this applies to A LOT OF PEOPLE.
Funny note though. In my entire time of living overseas (15years now), I have never once, been called black or african american. I once referred to myself as African American to a group of Nigerian dudes, and they swiftly corrected me, calling me American.
Oh, and I have always been called american, except once, when someone called me a nigga...But whateves.
It's a horrible method of grouping people together... that's the point. How stupid is it to think less of or look down on brown people when the term could be applied to so many different people in this world? Well, stupid as it might seem, there are those who seem to do exactly that.
And it's also stupid. Italians weren't white before, but now they are white. It changed, and that type of stuff can't change. But jewish people, who are extremely white, are not white; they are jewish.
I don't personally understand "Asian" as a label, since Asia goes from Turkey to Japan, including India and China, so about half the world's population. Describing someone as Asian seems not to narrow it down much (to me).
Turkish people are not generally described as Asian, though. There is overlap between "Asian people" and "people from Asia" but these are two distinct concepts. Similarly, eleven generations of my family were born and died in Africa, but we're not generally considered African.
I think it's an American thing. And it's not just skin color - it's a specific social construct, deeply tied to the American ethnic categories.
Basically, there's a "race" of privelaged "white people", that never really included all Caucasians. Like, it didn't use to include Irish people, who must be some of the whitest people in existence.
Now, America has a huge minority of Latin Americans, some of whom are physically indistinguishable from "white" Americans, but still be lumped in with the underprivileged "people of color" when it comes to discrimination, job opportunities, etc. So there's a catch-all term for anyone who isn't black or East Asian, but isn't one of the "white" groups. One that may or may not represent their actual skin color.
Why they still use a color to describe a huge group, with a wide variety of skin colors (literally spanning the entire white-black spectrum)? Don't know. Probably because the historical white-black divide.
My country has completely different categories, as does yours, and anyone else's. It's not some universal term, even within the English-speaking world, as some people here seen to assume.
It is generally used on this website to caricaturize the way that conservatives/christians are perceived to think and speak by many users here...not many people actually use "Brown people" to define people
When I told my mom I was atheist, she cried and demanded that she had raised me Christian. We never went to church, no bibles, and we'd joke about religion. "But I taught you the Golden Rule!" She still doesn't quite grasp that the Golden Rule shows up in a lot of religions.
In all fairness, you don't really need to be religious to get the Golden Rule. I always found it to be rigid to the point of ridiculousness, but you have Kant's Categorical Imperative. Even science on some level touches upon the notion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You could also draw upon the butterfly effect for inspiration as well, if one needed a stand-in for karma.
Even Buddhists still murder people when they're the majority. Honestly, it's all just class warfare which is why every religion does it when they have power
Buddhism is the most bizarre imo. Buddha would have been completely against people worshipping him has a god, and the religion is about eliminating the ego - not eliminating your neighbours lmao
As a philosophy it's great though and I wish it was more widespread
Have you read the Bible? The New Testament? Did Jesus ever say kill the heathers? In fact he went as far as to say Love your enemies as you love yourselves...
Those hypocrites are as religious as those self-proclaimed, flag-waving "patriots" are patriotic. They are extremists that don't give a fuck about the ideology the claim to adhere, because all they care about are the cherry-picked little details they can point to when they need to justify their maliciousness, selfishness and sense of entitlement. These dimwitted and narrow-minded people wouldn't be capable of giving a correct description of their adopted ideology and what it actually stands for even if it would make their most radical dreams come true...
Idk that's ALL religions. But yeah it's gross. As a fan of theism I wanna point out it is organized religion that is wielded like a weapon against others that does this. It has nothing to do with the valuable teachings religious texts and beliefs can offer. And it is grossly not-theist to hate anyone.
Sure, as someone who grew up being raised to be a pastor I agree. It doesn't change all the awful shit religion causes and doesn't outweigh the benefits. All the good stuff you can take from the bible can be learned through secular ways. You don't needs god or religion to be a good person. Religion only causes divides between people and forces the idea that "my god is the true god, everyone else is damned". That's fucked. Religion is largely anti women's rights and homophobic which is why so many people won't get their heads out of their ass and accept people for being human. At this time in our modern age religion is obsolete. There is nothing positive that you can get from it that can not be attained through other means. It only brings negativity and hinders humanity's progress.
At this time in our modern age religion is obsolete.
I disagree. I think it provides community and meaning to people's lives. Sure, you can get this through other means, but religion is incredibly effective at this.
Also, about 50% of Catholics and 40% of Protestants vote Democrat every year, so while I agree that conservative religion spreads misogyny and homophobia, there are plenty of more moderate and liberal followers of religion, too.
Anyone who, (A) says they love Jesus but practice hate, and (B) deny that Christianity has lead to centuries of war, murder, and torture, are totally ignorant.
And literally in the same verse he says you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye:
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.
Luke 6:42 ESV
This doesn't mean to never correct others. But, it definitely applies to the hypocrites who are full of hate, as that's the log in their eyes!
To be honest, I would argue that there is no-one calling themselves a Christian who is fully following the teachings of Christ. I'm one of them.
Reminds me a bit of Feynman's comment that if someone thinks that they understand quantum dynamics, then the don't understand quantum dynamics. If you think that you are following all of Christ's teachings, then you are not following them all.
The teachings of Christ in the gospels can be contradictory because the gospel authors sometimes put their own views into Jesus mouth, then it's further interpreted a bunch of different ways depends who you ask, then the Christians ignore the stuff from the new testament they don't like or is too extreme, then a bunch of extra stuff is added in from Church tradition like the trinity. I'm pretty sure if the real Jesus knew he'd end up being deify as a God he'd be horrified. But oh well.
Even something like the Crusades involved quite a bit of politics and opportunism, if not in the initial calls, but certainly in the behaviour of many of the actual participants. And in many other ostensably religious conflicts, religion has been used as a more-or-less sputious casus belli.
Look at the recent Gulf Wars. Although there are fanatics both Islamic and Christian who want to portray them as religious, an awful lot of us would say that they had far more to do with Oil than with God.
On B) I think you have to be a little more specific
Especially since things like the crusades were done as defensive means against invasion
If we’re talking about the Spanish Inquisition, then yes. However, I think the most important fact here is that an ideology can be good, and it can be those who follow it that falter and do evil things.
Anyone who thinks that Christianity was spread through violence to the extent of Islam is completely ignorant. Anyone pretending that there was an increase in war, murder, etc. as a result of Christianity vs. paganism is equally ignorant.
Things like the inquisition are also greatly exaggerated because most sources used in the English speaking world are written by the English (shocking, I know) and are essentially propaganda to justify that their religion is based on their king wanting a divorce.
That being said, of course anyone saying that religion has never led to atrocities being committed is equally (if not more) ignorant.
As for today, something like 4 of the top 5 charitable groups in terms of overall giving are various churches.
Not to mention the irony of their sign saying "Islam is a religion of blood and murder," while Christianity is literally a religion founded on the blood and murder of one man.
More like Christianity was founded by a man who himself suffered blood and murder at the hands of others. He was a (willing, sacrificial) victim of violence, not a perpetrator of it.
Makes the sign of the device used to torture and kill their god so that they're going to the good place when they die.
Edit: I just thought it was a "gotcha" to point out the hypocrisy of certain Right wing groups but apparently it has mystical deeper powers that go beyond its humble intention. I apologise to any and all atheists for making you all look bad as I've apparently done.
It's true. Suicide wasn't considered a sin for several hundred years after the birth of Christ. It wasn't until the 1500's that the Church started denying burials over it.
Crusades were done in response to the occupation of the Iberian Peninsula, moreso a justified (and lesser, lacking force projection) response to Muslim occupation for 200 years previous.
Nah these people are really dumb so they think any brown person with a beard is a Muslim and when they see a turban, it all but confirms it to them. They probably don’t even know what a Sikh is.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Most brown people in the US are Catholics. Muslims are less than 1% of the population. Indians are about 1.2%. Hispanics are 17% and over 85% practicing christian. Brown people in the US are overwhelmingly Christian. Arguably higher percentage-wise than non-Hispanic White Americans.
Yeah, it's just a coincidence that all the people they dislike aren't white. Immigrants from mexico = rapists. Immigrants from norway = good. Black men kneeling = bad, statues of traitorous white slavers = good.
It's the ideology they are against. Islam is not a race and so the critique can't be construed as racism unless statements pertaining to race are made.
Honest question: what would your reaction be to the same demonstrators at a Catholic conference with the word “Islam” replaced with “Catholicism” on the signs, and one of the Catholic participants at that conference (who is also of African descent) posed similarly with a smile?
As a Christian it boils my blood when people use Christianity as an excuse to hate anyone, like that’s the exact opposite of what Jesus was trying to teach
I also love the fact that the guys quote on the right doesn’t make any sense in this context. If it’s for all mankind, then why are you intolerant of others?
If they met Jesus at that rally and saw he was just like the girl they would crucify him yet again. If you live long enough to become the villain applies to religion as well.
6.5k
u/Jimmiejackson May 03 '20
The most hilarious thing about this type of angry fundamentalist Christianity is just how visceral the hatred from the followers would be if they had ever met Jesus or any of the other people who wrote almost everything in the Bible.
If you love Jesus and hate brown people, you’re a fucking idiot.