Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

[bobsticks]

Form the AOL homepage

Think of the amazing progress made...they're actually considering an overall worldview, the ramifications, and natural law vis-a-vis human rights...'tis a dawning of a new age...

KHARTOUM, Sudan (Sept. 7) - A Sudanese judge convicted a woman journalist on Monday for violating the public indecency law by wearing trousers outdoors and fined her $200, but did not impose a feared flogging penalty.
Lubna Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by the public order police in Khartoum. Ten of the women were fined and flogged two days later. But Hussein and two others decided to go to trial.

"I will not pay a penny," she told the Associated Press while still in court custody, wearing the same trousers that had sparked her arrest.
Hussein said Friday she would rather go to jail than pay any fine, out of protest of the nation's strict laws on women's dress.
"I won't pay, as a matter of principle," she said. "I would spend a month in jail. It is a chance to explore the conditions in jail."
The case has made headlines in Sudan and around the world and Hussein used it to rally world opinion against the country's morality laws based on a strict interpretation of Islam.
Galal al-Sayed, Hussein's lawyer, said he advised her to pay the fine before appealing the decision. She refused, he said, "She insisted."
The lawyer said the judge ignored his request to present defense witnesses.
"The ruling is incorrect," he said, adding that the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements.
Al-Sayed said the judge had the option of choosing flogging, but apparently opted for fine to avoid international criticism. "There is a general sentiment in the world that flogging is humiliating."
Ahead of the trial, police rounded up dozens of female demonstrators, many of them wearing trousers, outside the courtroom.
The London-based Amnesty International on Friday called on the Sudanese government to withdraw the charges against Hussein and repeal the law which justifies "abhorrent" penalties.
Human rights and political groups in Sudan say the law is in violation of the 2005 constitution drafted after a peace deal ended two decades of war between the predominantly Muslim north and the Christian and animist south Sudan.
The Amnesty statement said Sudan had been urged to amend the law which permits flogging, on the grounds that it is state-sanctioned torture, after eight women were flogged in public in 2003 with plastic and metal whips leaving permanent scars on the women. The women had been picnicking with male friends.
As a U.N. staffer, Hussein should have immunity from prosecution but she has opted to resign so that she could stand trial and draw attention to the case.
In a column published in the British daily the Guardian Friday, Hussein said her case is not an isolated one, but is a showcase of repressive laws in a country with a long history of civil conflicts.
"When I think of my trial, I pray that my daughters will never live in fear of these police ... We will only be secure once the police protect us and these laws are repealed," she wrote.
Hussein said earlier she would take the issue all the way to Sudan's Constitutional Court necessary, but that if the court rules against her and orders the flogging, she's ready "to receive (even) 40,000 lashes" if that what it takes to abolish the law.
El Deeb reported from Cairo.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-09-07 09:02:09

[Feanor]

For a time serious consideration was given to permitting Sharia law to govern civil contracts between consenting individuals in the province of Ontario.

As I recall it was justified on the basis that it wasn't essentially different than have publically sponsored Catholic schools or the voluntary special criminal courts permited for status aboriginals. However the proposal was eventually rejected on the grounds (1) that the province simply didn't need two sets of laws, and (2) that the civil contracts in question would be predominently marriage contracts that would be discriminatory against women relative to the common law.

[Mr Peabody]

The judge should have just ordered the flogging and put it to rest. She has essentially already won.

For some reason Bob Seger's song Her Strut just came to mind.

Think of the endorsement money from jeans companies after this.

[02audionoob]

The judge should have just ordered the flogging

Do you really believe that?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do you really believe that?

Well no matter what, she has already won on the international stage. He could still order this thereby saving his face in the community. No matter what he orders, internationally it will be condemned.

[Mr Peabody]

Do you really believe that?

I was just being facecious. But, not that I believe she should have been for what she did but if they really wanted to enforce this law then they have to impose the penalty.

People want to think flogging is so unhumane then the same people won't hesitate to get into a fist fight over the stupidest of things. I have to wonder if the U.S. did this if our jails would be less populated. There's a town here in our state where some guys were arrested for walking up and just hitting a person. It seems this was a game to see if they could knock the person out in one punch. I just wonder if they will receive any real punishment, something other than parole. Would flogging stop stupidness like that or other petty crimes that wind people up in jail. It's like the school yard, love goes so far, you get your ass kicked enough, and then one day you have had enough and decide to fight back to prevent yourself from becoming the school door mat. When there's no consequence for one's actions then you get stupid stuff like what I mentioned. Sorry, for that rant but it some how connected at the time.

I'm not sure how letting women wear jeans would bring about peace but if that's what it takes...... Without knowing much about their government maybe this is what it takes to get a law changed. There are numerous examples of people here in the States who had to be arrested and take their case to the Supreme Court in order to win and change a law.

[02audionoob]

Punishment is a complicated issue in any humane culture.

[markw]

I don't think flogging a woman for wearing pants is warranted, but I would strongly consider it for those yahoos who simply wanted to punch people for no reason.

But, that's cultural relativism for ya. Remember, this is the same culture that blames the woman when she's raped.

[bobsticks]

Punishment is a complicated issue in any humane culture.

Predicated on "humane culture"...but you knew that...


...:skep:

[Mr Peabody]

It looks like we are all on the same page so far.

I don't know if it was the same judge but i saw some women were flogged some days earlier for breaking the same law. They are physically scarred for life. The sentence on the books is 40 lashes, the thought of that makes me crenge.

[ForeverAutumn]

As a U.N. staffer, Hussein should have immunity from prosecution but she has opted to resign so that she could stand trial and draw attention to the case.

This woman is a hero. I know that I could not be so brave.

For anyone who doubts the severity of Taliban Islam against womens rights (and human rights) and freedoms, I recommend reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's memoirs, Infidel. It is a real eye opener.

[ForeverAutumn]

The judge should have just ordered the flogging and put it to rest. She has essentially already won.


Well no matter what, she has already won on the international stage.

No. She hasn’t won. The law has not been changed and the next woman to get arrested for something as silly and simple as wearing pants may still be flogged. The fact that a woman can get arrested for this at all is obscene. Yes she’s brought this to the attention of the world, but the only reason that the judge is not imposing the flogging (yet) is so that he doesn’t look bad to international eyes. It is not out of any sense of wrong or human decency.

She wins when the law is abolished.

If the world was not paying attention, I’m sure that she would be flogged with her sisters.



Think of the endorsement money from jeans companies after this.

That isn’t funny.

[bobsticks]

This woman is a hero. I know that I could not be so brave.

For anyone who doubts the severity of Taliban Islam against womens rights (and human rights) and freedoms, I recommend reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's memoirs, Infidel. It is a real eye opener.

Das freulein ist korrect....

KORAN commands to kill infidels:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28

Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60

Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51

Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02


Mebbe some Nazi apologists will come along to correct me...

[Mr Peabody]

Where were the versus taken from? They must be either out of context or taken from some non-mainstream version of the Quran. If not, how could any Muslim live amongst anyone else and consider themselves devout?

[Mr Peabody]

That isn’t funny.[/QUOTE]

Maybe not, but I would bet she receives some offers. Sad, but true.

[Worf101]

Das freulein ist korrect....

KORAN commands to kill infidels:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28

Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60

Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51

Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02


Mebbe some Nazi apologists will come along to correct me...
Sorry man, you can find just as many bloody exhortations to kill the Philistine in the old testament of the bible. Look ALL "organized" religions have their faults. Considering the dirt the Catholic Church has done down through the Centuries against Protestants and Muslims I personally wouldn't be one pointing fingers. Still, you can't fault the religion but what people DO WITH THAT RELIGION. Hell according to the Book of Mormon I'm a lesser human being stained with sin, so trust me there's plenty of dirt to go around.

Da Worfster

[Feanor]

Sorry man, you can find just as many bloody exhortations to kill the Philistine in the old testament of the bible. Look ALL "organized" religions have their faults. Considering the dirt the Catholic Church has done down through the Centuries against Protestants and Muslims I personally wouldn't be one pointing fingers. Still, you can't fault the religion but what people DO WITH THAT RELIGION. Hell according to the Book of Mormon I'm a lesser human being stained with sin, so trust me there's plenty of dirt to go around.

Da Worfster

On the contrary, you can fault religion: see Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great). But I agree that it is generally sanctimonious to criticize one religion versus another.

I don't recall the details, but I think it was Hitchens who recounts the story of T.H. Huxley's son (nephew?) who, having been brought up without religion, was exorted to read the Bible by a fellow solidier (WWI?). Huxley read the Old Testiment for a week or two, and exclaimed, "Isn't God a sh!t!", referring e.g. to Yahweh's instruction to the Tribes of Israel to slaughter the ememies, man, women, child, and domestic beast.

The God of the Old Testment is indeed a jealous and vengeful god and that's where Mohammed got his initial ideas, I suppose. The "God of Love" of the New Testement is argueably an improvement, (though I personally am not making the arguement).

[3LB]

That sort of stuff does scare me, but Worf's right. I'm afraid all that which is written in the Koran isn't particualrly original, and neither is the old testament for that matter. Judism isn't the world's first organized religion. Some stories in the Bible are direct decendants of greek mythology. Same with the Koran.

But I see Bobstyx's point - we see the old testament and appreciate it for its virtues and don't take it verbatim, at least not everyone. It's scary to think that anyone could read that text and not see it for it is, a reaction to western occupation, just as a lot of the new testament was a reaction to Roman occupation. We don't slaughter people outright in the name of religion, but every time the US has gone to war, we've evoked the righteousness of our God over others. So we're not as obvious. We'd never flog a woman for wearing pants. We don't publically flog anyone in western culture, at least not literally. We have more subtle, entertaining ways of stealing people's dignity called reality TV. But at least we limit our hysteria to people who ask for it...mostly.

It isn't hard to see how an Islamic culture, who is familiar with the Bible, could come to the conclusion that the Bible might be the basis for US policy in the middle east. The US seems to have unflinching, dutiful support for Israel - hey, even if you don't believe it, you know the rest of the world thinks it.. That plays right into a lot of that extremist rhetoric.

I myself, don't think all muslim people buy into that stuff, because they enjoy a fair amount of wealth and technology themselves - Bagdad was a very modern city at one time, hell, Muslims invented most of our modern engineering and mathematics. I think the extremists just get the most attention. Its like what if Quakers were gun toting zealots or something...luckily, we don't have any such contingencies in our society... But I guess sometimes it comes down to pickin a side...everyone's gotta picka side, whether we like it or not.

Like Bob Dylan once said, "You're gonna have to serve somebody".

If it comes down to protecting a way of life or doing whats right, which do you choose if you don't know the difference? Which do you choose if you do?

[Feanor]

...

But I see Bobstyx's point - we see the old testament and appreciate it for its virtues and don't take it verbatim, at least not everyone. It's scary to think that anyone could read that text and not see it for it is, a reaction to western occupation, just as a lot of the new testament was a reaction to Roman occupation. We don't slaughter people outright in the name of religion, but every time the US has gone to war, we've evoked the righteousness of our God over others. So we're not as obvious. We'd never flog a woman for wearing pants. We don't publically flog anyone in western culture, at least not literally. We have more subtle, entertaining ways of stealing people's dignity called reality TV. But at least we limit our hysteria to people who ask for it...mostly.

It isn't hard to see how an Islamic culture, who is familiar with the Bible, could come to the conclusion that the Bible might be the basis for US policy in the middle east. The US seems to have unflinching, dutiful support for Israel - hey, even if you don't believe it, you know the rest of the world thinks it.. That plays right into a lot of that extremist rhetoric.

I myself, don't think all muslim people buy into that stuff, because they enjoy a fair amount of wealth and technology themselves - Bagdad was a very modern city at one time, hell, Muslims invented most of our modern engineering and mathematics. I think the extremists just get the most attention. Its like what if Quakers were gun toting zealots or something...luckily, we don't any such contingencies in our society... But I guess sometimes it comes down to pickin a side...everyone's gotta picka side, whether we like it or not.

...

It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.

[markw]

It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.Really? Did you ever wonder what was the main reason for the crusades? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Initial_causes_of_the_Crusades)

[3LB]

It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.

when?

[Worf101]

It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.
In certain areas of Europe conqured by the Muslims, particualrly southern Spain, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together in relative peace and harmony. This was shattered completely when Isabella and her hubby took over all of Spain, particularly the Moorish parts. Next up, the Spanish Inquisition. It is quite true. For a modern parralell, There are Jews in Iran still. They have the tacit blessing of the current Ayatollah who follows the precedent of the first one who intimated that the Jews who have lived peacefully in Iran are NOT the same Jews cross the way in Palestine. As far as I've heard, there've been no mass slaughters etc.. That might change in Isreal hits their nukes.

Da Worfster

[Feanor]

Really? Did you ever wonder what was the main reason for the crusades? (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Initial_causes_of_the_Crusades)

Yes, really. I'm not talking about aggression between Islamic empires and Chritian empires, but about treatment of citizens within the respective empires.

[nightflier]

FA, I never thought I would say this, but I completely agree with your post. I've also read Ayaan's books and seen her movie. I don't exactly think she had a good grasp of the politics in Somalia (or later The Netherlands), but it's certainly a vivid personal account worth reading. Let's hope she doesn't succumb to the same fate as Van Gogh....

That said, Islam is about complete submission. What Lubna Hussein is questioning isn't just the right to wear pants, but the right to question Islam, which in the eyes of many Muslims is far more blasphemous than the original crime. It is this very act that is so offensive about women in Iran refusing to wear the Hijab - it shows a defiance on many levels, one that if allowed, would lead to a domino effect. It could very well turn out that a higher court, one made up of different judges, will find her guilty of not complying with the lower court's findings, and punish her with a much more severe sentence.

On the issue of corporal punishment I do not agree at all that this would solve stupidity. As someone who spent years in schools where this was common practice, I can tell you without a doubt that it did nothing to curb undesired behavior and was seen by most of us as a rite of passage. I still keep in touch with a couple of my classmates and one was arrested for beating his own daughter and the other also regularly punishes his children with the dreaded "belt." Violence begets violence, so to speak, and it only furthers the escalation of violence in the lives of these people.

And this is true in the most repressive and violent countries too. Egypt comes to mind, where despite the most repulsive treatment in prisons (flogging, rape, fingernails, boiling, well you can use your imagination from there), their is no shortage of anti-government militants. Saddam couldn't contain his own republic of fear despite using the most unspeakable repression. We won't even go into the colorful history of Iran under the terror of the Savak, Pakistan's ISID, or the reasons we render the most stubborn "enemy combatants" to Morroco. These countries had/have atrocious human rights records and yet are still amazingly unstable to boot.

If we allow our (surprisingly religiously conservative) criminal justice system to become even more repressive and abusive against its inmates than it already is, then we only create a more violent criminal once he/she is released. Is it any wonder we have one of the highest rates in the Western world of criminals who return to prison? Would any of us allow an ex-con to move next door to our own homes? It matters little what crime they have committed - once they wear that scarlet letter, they can never be trusted again. And why is this? Because the violence inside has made them a person never to be trusted again. Our prison system is in some ways just as violent as the prisons in other countries, but we just pretend it isn't.

As Robin Williams put it so elegantly: once we convict a man for sodomy, we send him to a place where he'll be sodomized regularly. Where is the logic in that?

P.S. And yes, the violence and cruelty of the Crusades was incomparably one-sided.

[markw]

Yes, really. I'm not talking about aggression between Islamic empires and Chritian empires, but about treatment of citizens within the respective empires.So, you're saying that once they've subjugated the indigenous peoples and brutally killed off all that disagree with them, they were "nice" to those that survived?

There's a problem with that logic. See if you can figure it out.

[nightflier]

...once they've subjugated the indigenous peoples and brutally killed off all that disagree with them, they were "nice" to those that survived?

There's a problem with that statement, too.

[markw]

There's a problem with that statement, too.and that would be...?

[nightflier]

During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.

[Feanor]

During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.

This is not so say that Christians, Jews, et al., enjoyed anything like what we think of as "equality" today. Technically they were inferior to Muslims in various important ways -- different military service, (in fact forbidden from military service generaly speaking), and special taxes were typically applied. But at the same time they enjoyed rights and, usually, protection from arbitrary violence, pogroms, and the like that were too common in Christian Europe.

[nightflier]

Indeed.

[markw]

During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.You make it seem like so much fun! You should be a recruiter for the armed forces.

I'm sure their arrival was seen as a trip to Disneyland in all these countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests)

[Worf101]

You make it seem like so much fun! You should be a recruiter for the armed forces.

I'm sure their arrival was seen as a trip to Disneyland in all these countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests)
Whatever your opinon of Islam as it practiced by some in the past and present what you've been told is true. You can characterise it any way you want but, for a time, Muslims were far more tolerant of religious differences than their "christian" neighbors. It's just as simple as that. I was born and raised a Christian and currently practice no organized religion, but fair is fair, truth is truth.

Da Worfster

[markw]

Whatever your opinon of Islam as it practiced by some in the past and present what you've been told is true. You can characterise it any way you want but, for a time, Muslims were far more tolerant of religious differences than their "christian" neighbors. It's just as simple as that. I was born and raised a Christian and currently practice no organized religion, but fair is fair, truth is truth.

Da WorfsterWhen did their attitudes change, and why? Because they finally got enough of a handle on the situation to let their true intent come to light?

Looking at what's going on in Africa, Indonesia, and other countries under the Moslem influence simply appalls me and. as far as I can see, their style of law goes back as far as I can remember. And, I'm not too sure that a bit of revisionist history doesn't apply, either.

And, I see that Europe is slowly being "invaded" by Islam as well. How long before there is enough influence there to start the change to shahira law there big time?

"Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without kafir influence. The thin end of the longest wedge is to demand that Muslims live outside kafir law in family and banking. Already, in England Islamic family law supercedes British law in families. There is no end to Islamic demands for power. So one day, Muslims in Britain will live under their own law, judges and police. The final stage is when Sharia law replaces English law in totality and kafirs have to live under Sharia law as dhimmis. The British have decided not to oppose this process, but for it to happen slowly and smoothly."

The first bolded section has been tried and failed in Canada (http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/a-short-overview-of-sharia-law/) but don't be surprised if it resurfaces. It already seems to have gained a foothold in England.

[3LB]

"Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without kafir influence. The thin end of the longest wedge is to demand that Muslims live outside kafir law in family and banking. Already, in England Islamic family law supercedes British law in families. There is no end to Islamic demands for power. So one day, Muslims in Britain will live under their own law, judges and police. The final stage is when Sharia law replaces English law in totality and kafirs have to live under Sharia law as dhimmis. The British have decided not to oppose this process, but for it to happen slowly and smoothly."

Have you been to church lately? Not trying to start anything, but really, do you think other religions don't have laws by which they live? OK so they won't imprison you if you don't 'pop to', but they did a few centuries ago.

I know that the words of the Koran are harsh and are inflexible, but so too are the words of most religious texts. Mormons have laws that are very restrictive, with regards to the power they must yield to their church in social and financial matters, not to mention they are very ritual oriented (secret rituals). They even tell their members how they should have sex. "The only Church" as some catholics call it has a long history of stifling sustenative human development in both society and science, up to and including imprisonment and execution, in the name of holiness. But yeah, I know, it ain't like that no more. Both catholicism and protestantism have rules they want everyone to live by, but they both started acknowledging human rights a century or two ago...took'em a while, but they got there.

Look, I know you think we should come to our own conclusions here, but I think what you are trying to say, is that the muslims are coming and their gonna hold their own inquisition over us westerners. Maybe they're just gonna infiltrate our societies and have their own gov't within established western gov't, until they one day overthrow what's left of westernized society. So what then pray tell is the long term plan. You and Bobstyx can't just keep posting articles about how abrasive and exclusive and murderous the Koran and its followers are because evey religious text can be picked apart and exploited for the weird **** within and that's not even an opinion. If you think they're gonna kill us, then we need a plan. Should we kill them first? Jes wonderin

But if this is about whether or not it might supplant christianity as a major influence, then BFD. As long as I don't have to miss football on Sundays or where a towel on my head, and they leave me alone, and stop putting pamplets on my door...Unless of course Islam does take over under its current inflexible sharia, then we got a several century long dark ages to look forward to again...well, they say there's gonna be a worldwide pandemic in the next few years anyway, where disease and famine will kill billions of people, maybe Islamic leaders will be better at digging mass graves than westerners would be...just a thought.

[markw]

Yeah, I've been to church and they do offer rules to guide my life, but do you really see where they also make the rules for the entire country to live by and enforce them with an iro hand?

Try living under sharia law and being a woman unde rsharia law. How about being blamed if you're a woman who is raped? I don't remember the punishment for adultry but you can bet it's not fun. How about facing cruel punishment (stoning?)for talking to a man who is not a member of your family? How about being allowed to kill your daughter because she brought shame to you?

Men have it a bit easier, but not by too much. How about losing a hand for stealing? How about being hung (and not in the good sense) for being gay?

Oh, yeah, I really see the parallel you're trying to make. [sacrasm mode off] gimme a fargin' break.

Wake up dude. This is going on today, just not here, thankfully! Did you not read the original post?

pssst.... you might want to poke around that link in my previous post.

[3LB]

but do you really see where they also make the rules for the entire country to live by and enforce them with an iro hand? as I clearly stated above - not anymore


Try living under sharia law and being a woman unde rsharia law. How about being blamed if you're a woman who is raped? I don't remember the punishment for adultry but you can bet it's not fun. How about facing cruel punishment (stoning?)for talking to a man who is not a member of your family? How about being allowed to kill your daughter because she brought shame to you? "I agree, those things are terrible" - is that the response you think the originator of the post wanted to elicit? are you kidding?


How about losing a hand for stealing? How about being hung for being gay? stealing what? how gay?

i keed i keed


Wake up dude. This is going on today, just not here, thankfully! Did you not read the original post? yes I did - but I gotta go take a kid to the orthodontist, so I won't be here for your response (for while anyway). So if you do respond, kindly point out any points you think I've missed with regards to the intent of the original post, or any of yours for that matter, because inquiring minds want to know, and I hate easter egg hunts.

[nightflier]

Mark,

I think you're missing the points being made:

1. Islam 1500 years ago is not the Islam of today. The religion and people under it have changed dramatically. There have been times since Mohammad's time where Islam was more tolerant and times when it was more conservative. But to think for even a minute that Europe under the Inquisition was anything better than life in the Middle East at the same time is absolutely ludicrous. Likewise, the violence against Islam during the crusades as well as the rule under the crusaders was far more violent and oppressive than under Islam. That is historical fact.

2. The stories we hear about Sharia Law being applied are also being challenged within Islamic countries. Therefore, the best thing for the West to do, is to work peacefully with those countries to bring about change. A position such as you're taking, which really boils down to isolation and violent resistance, is what gives militant Islam (and consequent Sharia Law) its strength and reason for being. Ironically, Muslim conservatism is far more at risk from a peaceful interchange of ideas, cooperation, and having to show respect for other beliefs. That can only happen if both sides stop fighting and start talking, which is the opposite of what we've been doing since 911. Speaking of 911, we had far more goodwill from Islamic states immediately following than we've had in the last 5 years, so maybe our policy of violent resistance and also hegemonic conquest is having a rather undesired effect both here in the West, and in their own countries.

All that being said, it is true that Islam is far more immutable than Christianity has been, especially in the last 200 years, but can we really say that this isn't really a response to our colonial aspirations? Looking at states that are more open, such as the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt, the most headway the West has been able to make there was the direct result of peaceful cooperation. At times when Western ideas retreated and conservatism rose were almost always times of conflict. This should be a lesson.

I am not at all excusing what I believe is the inhumanity of Islamic conservatism, and the experience of Lubna Hussein especially, but there must be common ground for us to even begin to have a dialogue about it. Showing up brandishing weapons and religious texts is hardly the way to get there. For your information, Ayaan Ali is what most would consider a conservative (member of the Dutch Ultra-Right Party, read: anti-Muslim), but she never disavows her faith, despite the Fatwa on her head. She's essentially been dealt the same punishment as Salman Rushdie, and yet she perseveres. That's the type of courage we need right now, not guns and angry rhetoric.

[markw]

The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago. Even then, your postulation that living under the yoke of foreigners who took over by force and being ruled by "benevolent rulers" being preferable to not is highly questionable.

As for today, simply look around you. I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely. As for the punishments I state, while perhaps not 100% accurate, are pretty close.

Do you get the meaning of "dhimmi"(sp). That is essentially a second-class citizen who has to pay for safety and still has to follow sharia law. Is that what you or your progeny to be, or are you willing to convert?

Look carefully at the population stats for Europe and you'll see that, just like Mexico is doing here, they're being invaded by immigration and reproduction, a foreign influence is slowly taking over.

Read this link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html) and then you tell me that it's not something to be carefully monitored. There is no negotiation involved. When a majority can, it will apply it's laws.

I have five grand-kids and would like them (and their grand-kids) to live their lives with the same rights we were born with and in the same country in which they were born.

Of course, if you don't mind your grand-kids living under sharia law, then that's your choice.

[Worf101]

The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago. Even then, your postulation that living under the yoke of foreigners who took over by force and being ruled by "benevolent rulers" being preferable to not is highly questionable.

As for today, simply look around you. I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely. As for the punishments I state, while perhaps not 100% accurate, are pretty close.

Do you get the meaning of "dhimmi"(sp). That is essentially a second-class citizen who has to pay for safety and still has to follow sharia law. Is that what you or your progeny to be, or are you willing to convert?

Look carefully at the population stats for Europe and you'll see that, just like Mexico is doing here, they're being invaded by immigration and reproduction, a foreign influence is slowly taking over.

Read this link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html) and then you tell me that it's not something to be carefully monitored. There is no negotiation involved. When a majority can, it will apply it's laws.

I have five grand-kids and would like them (and their grand-kids) to live their lives with the same rights we were born with and in the same country in which they were born.

Of course, if you don't mind your grand-kids living under sharia law, then that's your choice.
Mark, while I understand and even share some of your concerns (I'd want myself nor my loved ones anywhere near Sharia Law) I'm not as alarmed by Islam's rise as you. There are several reasons for Islam's rise and popularity of Sharia law, particularly in the 3rd world.

1. Sharia law is while considered harsh and draconian is at least 'fair". That's its major appeal in the 3rd world. Most "governments" in the 3rd world are so corrupt there's not even a hint of "justice" in the room, just the stench of abuse, patronage and graft. Muslims in the hills come down and say, hey, while we might flog you, behead you ror stone you, the law is inviolate, incorruptable and applied equally (such as it is). Until the west or their home societies can give them something "better" Islam and Sharia Law will continue to attract converts.

2. Lets face facts, White, Christian Westerners ain't having enough goddamn kids. Simple as that. England may be drowning in Muslims but it ain't their fault that they keep having kids and Lord Fortesque's line has died out like Bobby Browns recording career. You want to hold on to your country's ideals, culture and political bent? Well you better start having some kids then. You can't hold an empire from the grave man!!!! And it appears that many of the kids today don't seem to share the same jingoistic xenophobia as their parents soooo. You do the math.

Da Worfster

[markw]

Dude, I've got three grown boys and five grand-kids so far. I've done my share and I really would like to wait a while before starting on great-grand-kids since the oldest grand-daughter is 14.

And, while I hear you, I don't think color or religion has anything to do with it. I know many black Christians and various non-Christians of various colors as well who are aware of this situation as well.

There's a great video on exactly what you're saying on this somewhere and I'll try to dig it up. I think the magic number is 1.9. When i find it, I'll post it.

[edit] found it!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqpn-FpFnuM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqpn-FpFnuM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Auricauricle]

In discussions and readings I have participated and perused, it seems that many matters related to religious doctrine and practice boils down to matters of interpretation. I think it is fair to say that many religious works have described horrible consequences for the unfaithful (infidels) and those who are not members of the “chosen people”. In our own Bible, there are many such passages in the Old and New Testaments, and that message is effectively used to keep the flock in the pens, safely secure from the ravenous wolves outside.

As I said, though, these texts can be interpreted any way the reader wishes to. For the True Believer, who interprets texts literally, the justice of the Mosaic Law may well be a Divinely inspired prescription. For those who read the Bible as a metaphorical text, perhaps the scriptures are to be interpreted in a more contemporary light. Just as the U.S. Constitution has been used to delineate the practices and comportment of lawgivers, etc., it took many years before lines like “All men are created equal” were truly examined.

I see literal translations of such texts as rather narrow-minded and as a blunt instrument to keep parishioners in line and to keep outsiders from tainting bloodlines. For populations that are uneducated or whose creative or imaginative spirit is squelched in the name of the Church, a given preacher or Ayatollah, such an appreciation of the Good Book, the Torah or the Koran is quite effective.

On the other hand, contemporary interpretations of these texts, is possible in a diametrically different society, where creativity, imagination and education are allowed to flourish. Opposed to regimes that are threatened by these things, societies that embrace such interpretations are far more flexible and do not see the need to instill by fear but inspire through knowledge.

Whether we’re talking about Christian, Jewish or Islamic faiths and peoples, we are talking about tribes. These texts have been used for many centuries not only as an expression of peoples’ experience and faith, but as documents to inspire and understand. Whether we use those books to share doctrines and discuss them respectfully or use those same tomes to clonk each other over the heads is the question we ought to be thinking about.

[3LB]

so we're ultimately worried about absorption or expulsion of one culture into/by another...to combat it, we could have more kids, and lead lives condusive to affording and supporting lotsa kids (got it), but if we can't, for some reason, have lotsa kids, could we maybe support others who are willing to do so, through some sort of public funding...we could call it...welfare...oh the irony of it all

does this mean we have to go to church too? cuz I don't want to - the message is boring and the music sucks.


I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely. You are right there, because western civilization is a much safer place for women. You'll never see a woman flogged in an official capacity here. Soooo...how much higher is the rate of sexually based crimes against women in Islamic countries?

and just to set the record straight, I do not support or condone sharia law - I like women in pants, preferrably jeans.

[Auricauricle]

I agree: I don't think color, religion, or whatever is at the crux of these arguments. All of these things are clever smokescreens to identify the enemy. It's just a matter of Us and Them. Period.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zlY-JlE5ZCo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zlY-JlE5ZCo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[nightflier]

Sticks, you've been inconspicuously quiet. Are you still lurking around?

[Auricauricle]

3LB, at the risk of being crass, I would say that your remark pertaining to offspring as insurance in case of incursion may well be spot on. But this matter, like matters of interpretation of certain texts, ought to be considered in terms of historic and anthropological (and other) points of relevance....(As most of the previous remarks seem to indicate).

[3LB]

3LB, at the risk of being crass, I would say that your remark pertaining to offspring as insurance in case of incursion may well be spot on. But this matter, like matters of interpretation of certain texts, ought to be considered in terms of historic and anthropological (and other) points of relevance....(As most of the previous remarks seem to indicate).

huh...?

[bobsticks]

Sticks, you've been inconspicuously quiet. Are you still lurking around?

Nope...no lurking...I've had a major push at the beginning of this week in order to be fully free and available for this vacation and the Chicago AR Summit...Swishy, Autumn, Mid-Fi, I shall see ye all on the morrow...

There's been a lot of great points and a comendable amount of civility in this thread...there's been some Inaccuracy too. Historical fact doesn't change because it doesn't meet with our current set of precepts or it "hurt peoples delicate feelings"...as just one example the Zoroastrians, Manichaeans, and followers of Mithras did not, in fact, fare any better under Muslim rule that the subsequent Christian empires...when historians say "marginalized" they mean peeps got killed.

My pont of this thread, within the context of what else has been occuring on AR, is that human history is full of tragedies, evils commited by virtually every group that has come to power...regardless of theology or doctrine. Everytime you get more than two people in a room the possibility of lynch mob mentality and malfeasance increases exponentially.

I would suggest that in order to maintain a longterm involvement in a site like this, one must be relatively "successful"...by that I mean, that while one might not be fantastically rich, you prolly don't live in a desert

Until we recognize that it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated, that everyone be given an opportunity to succed or fail...and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses...well, we're gonna continue to create underclasses that will lash out, will seek to oppress, seek to control...simply, seek to survive and do so in the only given eschatological context with which they are familiar.

...and none of this changes if one buries his head in the sand like an ostrich and engages in historical revisionism.

[Feanor]

...
Until we recognize that it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated, that everyone be given an opportunity to succed or fail...and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses...well, we're gonna continue to create underclasses that will lash out, will seek to oppress, seek to control...simply, seek to survive and do so in the only given eschatological context with which they are familiar.

...and none of this changes if one buries his head in the sand like an ostrich and engages in historical revisionism.

All this and you're a Republican?

Whew! Speaking of historical revisionism and head-in-the-sand. :frown2:

Is it a case if cognative dissonance?

[Mr Peabody]

Sticks, are you Republican? I used to consider myself one before the Bush administration, now I have no affiliation that I claim. I feel the U.S. needs a third party, at least, one who can be conservative yet still tend to the needs of the people. By needs I mean place the same importance on education and way of life as much as missiles.

[3LB]

Until we recognize that it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated, that everyone be given an opportunity to succed or fail...and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses...well, we're gonna continue to create underclasses that will lash out, will seek to oppress, seek to control...simply, seek to survive and do so in the only given eschatological context with which they are familiar.

I went back and re-read your first post...I still can't see this^message in that post...you sure like takin' the roundabout approach Bobby;)

But I totally agree...history is full of opression. No one religion or philosophy has been any worse or better than another. One culture has usually advanced at the expense of another. Cultures fall for various reasons, many of them self-inflicted. Since humanity doesn't actually ever learn anything from history, we should prolly just avoid it.:D

It is too bad that the only outreach of 'education' from our end seems to be religious missionaries who have a Bible-first agenda. The underclass has always been the target of religious missions...its an easy sell - "you are not in charge of your own situation, let God take care of it for you; here, have some bread and water and this new soccer ball".

So, if "it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated", who is doing the educating, and how?


and until we discontinue our decades old, emperialistic tendency of supporting petty despots and mock royalty who, in turn, manipulate the downtrodden masses

that's just not the NWO way...the best part about being in charge is by being able to tell at a glance who the downtrodden are, and keeping them there by manipulating them - its why people want to be in charge. It isn't just about having a piece of the pie, its about saying who else gets to have some too.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Auricauricle]

...And this is exactly why the intellectuals and artists are among the first to be burnt at the stakes when the sheepdip hits the fan!

[nightflier]

There is still a Republican party? I thought that after that whole Palin tragedy they couldn't decide anymore if they cared more about god or about money.

What exists in each society however, is conservatives and progressives. Yes, even in Islamic states with Sharia Law. And yes, even in Alabama, too.

[3LB]

How do we foster an era of education in cultures whose extremist contingencies like to keep that sort of thing to a minimum, or at least, control it?

[markw]

so we're ultimately worried about absorption or expulsion of one culture into/by another...to combat it, we could have more kids, and lead lives condusive to affording and supporting lotsa kids (got it), but if we can't, for some reason, have lotsa kids, could we maybe support others who are willing to do so, through some sort of public funding...we could call it...welfare...oh the irony of it allUnfortunately, when a self-replicating welfare society is created, you just wind up with mindless hordes of people who simply take from society. These people are socially and morally ambivilent and add nothing to society.They don't care about anything until the handout sstop and reality whacks them upside the head with a 2x4. By then it's too late.


does this mean we have to go to church too? cuz I don't want to - the message is boring and the music sucks.You don't have to now, do you? But, should the worst happen, I doubt you will either. You'll just have to live by their religious laws interperted in the most brutal way possible. Oh, unless you DO go to their "church", you'll be treated as a second-class citizen, and have to pay extra for the privelege. Oh, don't forget to kneel towards Mecca several times daily...


You are right there, because western civilization is a much safer place for women. You'll never see a woman flogged in an official capacity here. Soooo...how much higher is the rate of sexually based crimes against women in Islamic countries?Remember, it's not always reported. Why would a woman want to report it? They are always responsible for it happening and are punished. And, why would men bother? Add to that that men are allowed to "force" their women to have sex on demand.

So, it's not quite the the black and white question you think. Nice try, though.

[Feanor]

How do we foster an era of education in cultures whose extremist contingencies like to keep that sort of thing to a minimum, or at least, control it?

Do you mean Iran, Afganistan? Or do you mean Alabama, Texas?

Religious extremists are bad nooz!! Whether Islamic Fundamentalists or Christian Fundamentalists, they are equally filled with self-righteous certainty.

[nightflier]

...your postulation that living under the yoke of European colonialists who took over by force and being ruled by "benevolent rulers" being preferable to not is highly questionable.

...I cannot think of any white-male dominated country that is under Christian and Western economic control as being any place for a non-Christian or a woman to live safely....

Do you get the meaning of a new immigrant from the Middle East in a Western Country? That is essentially a second-class citizen who has to pay for safety and still has to follow Christian law that is geared towards profit rather than welfare....

Look carefully at the population stats for the Middle East and you'll see that, just like the US was doing in its own country, and then in the Phillipines and Latin America, the Middle East was being invaded by colonialists, and a foreign influence was slowly taking over.

Read ...(references too many to list) and then you tell me that colonial hegemony is not something to be carefully monitored. There is no negotiation involved. When a Christian and colonial power can, it will apply it's own laws.

...

Of course, if you don't mind your grand-kids living under Christian profit-motivated laws that don't guaranty their welfare, then that's your choice.

Pot, meet kettle.

And while I don't disagree with you, and I share the Western perspective that punishment in Sharia Law countries is inhumane, the people who live in those societies (yes, even women) don't all share all our criticisms of it. While certainly not ideal, we also have to recognize that their lives are safer, healthier, and happier in many cases. Crime rates are incredibly low; suicide rates, homelessness, and unemployment are practically non-existent, social bonds are stronger, charitable giving is 2-3 times greater, and infant mortality rates are lower than our own. Imagine not having to lock your car, or your home. Even simpler things like child care when you work is more readily available. Perhaps our disdain for their way of life is more rooted in our lack of knowledge about it.

I'm of the opinion that we can learn a lot from them as well as they can learn from us. But the xenophobic posturing that many of us take on when the topic of Islamic culture invading ours is brought up, only serves to increase tensions and drive us apart. This leads to less understanding, cooperation, and exchanges and ultimately a less safe world for both our cultures. With our crusading and colonial ways, we haven't exactly put our best foot forward. And our political, military, and economic hegemony of the past 100 years have hardly served to demonstrate that our way is better for them. It is a 2-world system where the rift grows deeper every time we focus on our differences rather than our commonalities. Dwelling on the minor impact of their culture as invading ours not only glosses over our own violently invading ways, but makes resolving our differences that much harder because we get lost in xenophobic irrationality.

While we talk of individualism, self-determination, and Manifest Destiny as virtues, coming from the dominant power, these ideals also smack of us-vs.them thinking, isolationism and the act of putting up walls between cultures. In essence, it is the antithesis of society. In nature, an isolated culture dies out and we should heed that lesson. At what point do we stop segregating out "undesirable" elements in our own society? After the Muslims are gone, do we then go after Catholics? Then Mormons? Jews? Unitarians? Pentecostals? And once we are all of the same church, do we then use skin color, gender-preference, income, birth, to further purify our ideal society? Dr. Strangelove would blush at the prospect, I'm sure....

It seems that many conservatives, Republicans, and religious-minded folks here in the US, are so focused on individualistic ideals and defending their possessions and beliefs that they loose sight of the fact that their views are really anti-social, anti-societal, and only viable on an individual basis. Living with others requires compromises, give-and-take, and tolerance. Anyone who doesn't believe so isn't married, lol. A society of one is not a society anymore.

There was a time during the cold war, when the a common criticism of extreme communists was that they were quite similar to fascists. I think the same logic can be applied here. At what point do our Western conservatives veer so far to the right that they meet Sharia Law fanatics on the other side? Wake up people: they are preaching the same isolationist and invasion-fearing rhetoric that some of us are. Perhaps unfortunately for both of you, real society, growth, and ultimately, the survival of our species, lies somewhere in between.

[markw]

Boy, you sure see things through rose-colored glasses, don't you? You make ithe muslim way of life look like some sort of idealistic society where justice prevails and evil is put in it's place and the western worlsdis the playground of satan.

If you want to talk about a second-class citizen, go live in a muslim controlled country. Be sure to bring your wife and daughters.

You DO realize thatt you've posted pretty much the he biggest load I've seen since I took colon-blow.

P.S. this was directed at nightflier.

[markw]

Do you mean Iran, Afganistan? Or do you mean Alabama, Texas?

Religious extremists are bad nooz!! Whether Islamic Fundamentalists or Christian Fundamentalists, they are equally filled with self-righteous certainty.

"O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee."


My, my... look who lives in a religiously fundamentalist country! You've got some nerve to talk about the US with those words in your national anthem, doncha?

But I guess that's just that famous Canadian self-delusion of of moral superiority kicking in again, eh?

But, yes, any time fundamentalists force their beliefs and laws on everyone it's bad. It's a good thing our constitution disallows that.

[02audionoob]

Do you mean Iran, Afganistan? Or do you mean Alabama, Texas?



What an outright jackass comment.

[nightflier]

Markw, Have you ever been to a Muslim country?

I've visited the UAE, including Dubai, Rasalkhaima and Sharjah, where Sharia law is practiced and they even have public beatings (I never saw one of those, nor would I want to see one). In essence this is one of the most repressive places in the world. Despite all that, I certainly didn't get the sense that life there was miserable. Our interpreter was actually very honest and talked about the good & bad of living there. But what struck me more was how kind and open people were. They knew I was American and indirectly responsible for much of their reasons for being angry at the West. Yet they never made me feel threatened or even disliked and they were about as kind as they could have been.

Now I've had the similar experiences in Germany and South Africa, even in New York, Saint Louis and Columbus, here in the US. But in those places there were always people who were not so nice and neighborhoods where I wouldn't be safe, and I'm not even going to talk about the issue of race. No such dangers or prejudices in the UAE. Now I'm sure these are only my personal experiences, but it is, nonetheless first hand. Now I realize we don't all have the opportunity to travel, but if we're going to talk about rose-colored glasses, maybe our view of our own American society is a bit more colored than we would like to believe.

I've also been to London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Paris and I have seen a less glorious side of our Western culture. I've also seen what the "Islamic invasion" is like there, and while there are many problems, I also know that the vast majority of immigrants want nothing more than to find religious tolerance for themselves as well as for their hosts. The ones who do leave the Middle East do so for a better, more free life. For the most part, they are moderates and they want to meet the West somewhere in the middle. They aren't looking to turn the West into another Sharia law-controlled state, or else, why would they have left their own countries?

If it is to survive, human society needs to find a middle ground for religion, culture, and wealth. As much as it may displease us here in the US, our American society is not it, so we should really stop trying to force everyone to be like us.

[markw]

You visited them? Good for you!

You don't think that since you were there for, I'm assuming, the financial betterment of them and your company couldn't have had any bearing on your treatment?

Try living there permanently as a "commoner". Bring your family as well.

Then get back to us.

FWIW, don't go putting words in my mouth. I thought you were above setting up straw man arguments but perhaps I was wrong.

Nowhere did I ever suggest that ALL muslims were raving maniacs. All it takes is a few, and they can be very politically savvy as well as cunning. Think about what event today marks and what nineteen Saudis with box-cutters were able to accomplish. And remember, the Saudis are are supposed to be friends.

But, please explain to me all the recent muslim terrorist activity in England since they allowed sharia law to creep into the landscape. Nose of the camel, perhaps?

[Feanor]

What an outright jackass comment.

Or maybe not ... Bible Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt).

And yes, markw, is right, sort of, because there is a Bible belt in Canada too: see the same article.

[Feanor]

"O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee."


My, my... look who lives in a religiously fundamentalist country! You've got some nerve to talk about the US with those words in your national anthem, doncha?

But I guess that's just that famous Canadian self-delusion of of moral superiority kicking in again, eh?

But, yes, any time fundamentalists force their beliefs and laws on everyone it's bad. It's a good thing our constitution disallows that.

Try not to be an ass. The point is I deplore religous fundamentalists what ever their religious flavor and where ever they are. And yes, there are a few in Canada.

[02audionoob]

Or maybe not ... Bible Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt).



Nah...trust me...it is. And you often are. But at least you're consistent.

[nightflier]

Mark,

My aunt lives there. So I do know a bit about it. Also, I was there as a tourist - this was not a business trip. And we took our kids too. My wife covered, but that's a small price to pay for what we got to see, hear, taste and experience.

Regarding those highjackers, they were indeed from Saudi Arabia (most of them) so why did we invade Iraq? Of all the countries in the region, Iraq was the most un-fundamentalist, so why did we go there? More importantly, why were Saudi planes allowed to leave on September 12th when no other planes were allowed to fly at all? Why did some 30+ large investors and firms pull their money out of the market at the end of the day on September 10th and why isn't anybody asking them a few questions? And why did we do such a piss-poor job protecting ourselves before September 11th? I mean you had guys in Florida wanting to learn how to fly w/o knowing how to take off or land - are you kidding me? Was it maybe because Bush and his cabinet in their infinite wisdom pulled 90% of the counter-terrorist staff that Clinton put in place, and redirected their efforts on Iraq? There's a hole lot of questions I would like answered too.

Now this doesn't at all excuse those SOBs who flew those 4 planes into buildings, but it sure makes you wonder how much of a green light they had been given. Rose colored glasses only see so much from a black & white mindset.

And there is no correlation between terrorist activity in England and Sharia law that I'm aware of. If there is, please enlighten us.

[markw]

Try not to be an ass. The point is I deplore religous fundamentalists what ever their religious flavor and where ever they are. And yes, there are a few in Canada.Wow. Two anti-US digs and then you tell me not to be an ass.

I'm not being an ass. I merely stooped to your level.

Didn't you like it? Too fargin' bad.

You should keep your jingoistic sphincter shut before posting your verbal diarrhea here.

[Feanor]

Wow. Two anti-US digs and then you tell me not to be an ass.

I'm not being an ass. I merely stooped to your level.

Didn't you like it? Too fargin' bad.

You should keep your jingoistic sphincter shut before posting your verbal diarrhea here.

Again please, who's the one who can't take it? Hypocrite.

[markw]

Again please, who's the one who can't take it? Hypocrite.Who's talking about taking it? I can take it ...and I can dish it out.

You started with the jingoistic bullshiite and now you cry like a little baby when I throw it back at you?

Sheesh...

[markw]

Mark,

My aunt lives there. So I do know a bit about it. Also, I was there as a tourist - this was not a business trip. And we took our kids too. My wife covered, but that's a small price to pay for what we got to see, hear, taste and experience.Really... I'd sure like to know how the little woman felt about this. After all, that is a fairly misogynistic society and I can see why you wouldn't be bothered by It.


Regarding those highjackers, they were indeed from Saudi Arabia (most of them) so why did we invade Iraq? Of all the countries in the region, Iraq was the most un-fundamentalist, so why did we go there?dunno. But in hindsight it was a mistake. But, many countries provided intelligence to support it.


More importantly, why were Saudi planes allowed to leave on September 12th when no other planes were allowed to fly at all?Now you're saying that all saudis were involved? Interesting cospiracy theory. Maybe it was for their safety?


Why did some 30+ large investors and firms pull their money out of the market at the end of the day on September 10th and why isn't anybody asking them a few questions? And why did we do such a piss-poor job protecting ourselves before September 11th? I mean you had guys in Florida wanting to learn how to fly w/o knowing how to take off or land - are you kidding me? Was it maybe because Bush and his cabinet in their infinite wisdom pulled 90% of the counter-terrorist staff that Clinton put in place, and redirected their efforts on Iraq? There's a hole lot of questions I would like answered too.Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it? The clues to finding the killer in a good mystery novel is always obvious when one gets to the end, isn't it?


Now this doesn't at all excuse those SOBs who flew those 4 planes into buildings, but it sure makes you wonder how much of a green light they had been given. Rose colored glasses only see so much from a black & white mindsetI'm glad to hear that, but what "green light" are you referring to? Who do you think gave it? Please share and offer some proof. I'm curious..


And there is no correlation between terrorist activity in England and Sharia law that I'm aware of. If there is, please enlighten us.MAybe sharia law has nothing to do with it. Maybe it IS all the muslims over there being allowed to run around unchecked. As for enlightenment. simply go to google.com and google "emgland+terrorist activity+muslim" and you'll find hours of reading to satisfy your curiosity.

[Feanor]

Great thread, eh, 'Sticks?

My final thought here is that the problem that western nations have today with Radical Islam, Islamists, Jihadists, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, is a political problem, not a religious one. At its roots are the politics and economics of the 20th century, not theology.

[markw]

Great thread, eh, 'Sticks?

My final thought here is that the problem that western nations have today with Radical Islam, Islamists, Jihadists, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, is a political problem, not a religious one. At its roots are the politics and economics of the 20th century, not theology.And, with islam and politics, they are so intertwined in their society and laws that they are one on the same. That was pretty much the whole gist of this thread. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Then again, maybe not quite that surprised...

[markw]

Das freulein ist korrect....

KORAN commands to kill infidels:
...
... many quotes.
...

Mebbe some Nazi apologists will come along to correct me...Well, not nazis per se, but you essentially called it.

[Smokey]

As for today, simply look around you. I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely.

Apparently you didn’t google that subject :)

One wouldn’t think that any religion minority be living in Iran since the government is so extreme, but outside Israel, Iran have largest Jews population in the middle east (150,000-200,000). And healthy Christian population (300.000), and Zoroastrian (Fire God) which was original Persia religion before Islam.

Those three religions are recognize by the state and each one have a seat in parliament. They have churches, Senegal and fire temple to worship and live like any other citizen. The only thing that religion minority members can not do is to run for political office.

Here are some photos of Christians celebrating new year in a 400 year old church in Iran.

http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jan/New-Year-Vank-Church-Isfahan1.jpg
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jan/New-Year-Vank-Church-Isfahan2.jpg
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jan/New-Year-Vank-Church-Isfahan3.jpg
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/jan/New-Year-Vank-Church-Isfahan8.jpg

[markw]

According to other sources, the Sephardic Jewish population in Iran is 25,000 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html). Where did you get your figure? They have been there since 500 bc and, strangely enough, do seem to be well treated..

And, as per this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran), the Christian population in Iran is not exactly faring quite so well, and rarely has. snippet follows...

"Due to the socio-economic and political pressures in the years following the Iranian Revolution, periods of outright persecution and times of more latent discrimination, many Iranian Christians, both as part of the general exodus of Iranians and as response to the specific pressures, have emigrated, mostly to the USA, Canada and Western Europe. In 2000, about 0.4% of Iran's population were Christians. In 1975, Christians numbered about 1.5% of the total population. Statistically, a much larger percentage of non-Muslims have emigrated out of Iran.[citation needed]

While the government guarantees the recognised Christian minorities a number of rights (production and sale of non-halal foods),[citation needed] guaranteed representation in parliament, special family law etc.,[citation needed] government intrusion, expropriation of property, forced closure and persecution, particularly in the initial years after the Iranian Revolution, have all been documented. According to the Barnabas Fund, 'the regime rules through fear, and they want Christians to be afraid'. Most prominent has been the death of Haik Hovsepian Mehr, bishop of the Jamiat-e Rabbani, in 1994. Recently the continuing imprisonment of Hamid Pourmand,[2] [3] a lay pastor of Jammiat-e Rabboni, and the murder of Ghorban Tourani,[4] [5] the pastor of an independent evangelical church have created international concern."

Remember, all the religions you mention were there and were welcomed by the rulers of the country before Islam was invented, but the fact they remain is good, and a testament to their steadfast will to remain in their homeland.

[3LB]

Do you mean Iran, Afganistan? Or do you mean Alabama, Texas?


Do you really think personal freedom and access to education are as limited in the American south (people who have the right to vote, freedom of speech etc.) as they are in Islamic extremist controlled regimes (where they do not have a vote, free speech, etc)?

How can you make such a comparison?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and give you the benefit of the doubt and write that off to your 'just wanting to stir the pot'.

[bobsticks]

All this and you're a Republican?

Whew! Speaking of historical revisionism and head-in-the-sand. :frown2:

Is it a case if cognative dissonance?

Lol...stop bein' so grumpy...

Don't make me pull yer Medicaid...oh, wait...

[bobsticks]

Sticks, are you Republican? I used to consider myself one before the Bush administration, now I have no affiliation that I claim. I feel the U.S. needs a third party, at least, one who can be conservative yet still tend to the needs of the people. By needs I mean place the same importance on education and way of life as much as missiles.

I agree with this.

But, just because I don't regard today's perversion of the Republican Party as a fair statement of it's values doesn't mean that I still don't prefer to more strongly align myself with that one of the two viable parties.

[bobsticks]

The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago...

Is it? Because many of the same socioeconomic imperatives still exist...though, admittedly, if you were a stranger in the tourist district of a strange land that might be harder to divine.

[bobsticks]

I went back and re-read your first post...I still can't see this^message in that post...you sure like takin' the roundabout approach Bobby;)

But I totally agree...history is full of opression. No one religion or philosophy has been any worse or better than another. One culture has usually advanced at the expense of another. Cultures fall for various reasons, many of them self-inflicted. Since humanity doesn't actually ever learn anything from history, we should prolly just avoid it.:D

It is too bad that the only outreach of 'education' from our end seems to be religious missionaries who have a Bible-first agenda. The underclass has always been the target of religious missions...its an easy sell - "you are not in charge of your own situation, let God take care of it for you; here, have some bread and water and this new soccer ball".

So, if "it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated", who is doing the educating, and how?



that's just not the NWO way...the best part about being in charge is by being able to tell at a glance who the downtrodden are, and keeping them there by manipulating them - its why people want to be in charge. It isn't just about having a piece of the pie, its about saying who else gets to have some too.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


I do like the "roundabout" approach, breh...if only because it creates conversation...and only through the attempt at dialogue will the multitudes of sides meet.

[bobsticks]

Unfortunately, when a self-replicating welfare society is created, you just wind up with mindless hordes of people who simply take from society. These people are socially and morally ambivilent and add nothing to society.They don't care about anything until the handout sstop and reality whacks them upside the head with a 2x4. By then it's too late.

The same could probably be said true of past generations that have knowingly, and willingly, mortgaged the financial futures of their descendents.

[bobsticks]

Do you mean Iran, Afganistan? Or do you mean Alabama, Texas?

Religious extremists are bad nooz!! Whether Islamic Fundamentalists or Christian Fundamentalists, they are equally filled with self-righteous certainty.

Yes...

[bobsticks]

What an outright jackass comment.

Really? Because the intent can be just as malevolent and controlling...

[bobsticks]

My final thought here is that the problem that western nations have today with Radical Islam, Islamists, Jihadists, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, is a political problem, not a religious one. At its roots are the politics and economics of the 20th century, not theology.


If only that were the case.

[bobsticks]

If it is to survive, human society needs to find a middle ground for religion, culture, and wealth. As much as it may displease us here in the US, our American society is not it, so we should really stop trying to force everyone to be like us.

You're right. Unfortunately your entire argument previous to this did nothing to prove thhis conclusion.

It's not just Americans that have to do the changing. You don't think the mindful pawns of the powerbrokers in other states need to stop preaching hate. I don't think it's a coincidence that the largest growing sectors of the fringe elements of religion come from economically poor areas and prisons.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that this thread comes on this particular anniversary...it's my generation's Kennedy Assassination

[bobsticks]

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4w9EksAo5hY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4w9EksAo5hY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

[Rich-n-Texas]

Liberal amounts of rain today in this Islamic State of Texas. Doing my lawn a world of good!

God is great! Death to the Infidels!.

[Mr Peabody]

Rich, did you say you were going to cut my grass? That's nice of you, I'll even let you use my mower, I still burn gas and it's quasi self propelled.

[Rich-n-Texas]

www.cititurf.com (http://www.cititurf.com) Mr. P. Maybe they have a branch up there in St. Loius. :smilewinkgrin:

[nightflier]

Really... I'd sure like to know how the little woman felt about this. After all, that is a fairly misogynistic society and I can see why you wouldn't be bothered by It.


It's all about doing as the Romans do, rather than doing as American tourists do. You should travel more, it might be enlightening.


dunno. But in hindsight it was a mistake. But, many countries provided intelligence to support it.

What? Iraq 2.0 was the single biggest political & military blunder since Vietnam and all you can say is "dunno"? Maybe that should be something you give a little more thought. Ahem, many countries provided intelligence about the terrorist having anything to do with Iraq??? Name one.


Now you're saying that all saudis were involved? Interesting conspiracy theory. Maybe it was for their safety?

Where did I say that they were all involved? The point is, why did they need to leave in a hurry and couldn't anyone stop them from leaving. Gee, citizens from country A just attacked country B, and the very next day, 200+ people from country A are allowed to leave when no one, absolutely no one else is? Doesn't that bother you just a tad? For their safety??? I distinctly remember reading in the papers that our security agencies had some very important questions to ask several of these "special" individuals, questions related to fund-raising and other shady stuff. You're kidding me with these questions, aren't you?


Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it? The clues to finding the killer in a good mystery novel is always obvious when one gets to the end, isn't it?

Hindsight? It was a mess before, during and well after. I already mentioned the questionable stuff that happened before. And afterwards, investigators were hindered for months trying to figure out what happened. Many key people in the investigation resigned, were fired or re-assigned. Doesn't it bother you just a tad that we suffered the worst attack on American soil since the Brits were last here and we retaliate against the wrong country, we are prevented from finding out what happened at every turn by high-level co-conspirators and traitors in our own government, and our own president boldly lied to the world about it all? Yes, I know presidents lie about spots on dresses, but jeez, those are certainly some rose-colored glasses you see the world through.


I'm glad to hear that, but what "green light" are you referring to? Who do you think gave it? Please share and offer some proof. I'm curious.

I thought I was pretty clear. The FBI finds out that radical Saudi nationals are wanting to learn how to fly but not land or take off. They send their concerns up the chain of command, and then are told this is OK? That's a pretty big f'ing green light, if you ask me. Then some 4/5ths of personnel assigned to defend against terrorist attacks by the Clinton Administration are "reassigned" to Iraq just months before the attacks? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty big friggin' green light too, don't you think? The the FBI notes that major investment firms are dumping their stocks just days before, and again they are told to find other things to focus on. How many more green lights do you need?


MAybe sharia law has nothing to do with it. Maybe it IS all the muslims over there being allowed to run around unchecked.

You seem to be confusing Sharia law with Muslim immigration and suggesting that one invariably is a consequence of the other. That's a bit of a stretch. The vast majority of Muslims immigrants are of the more progressive variety, but as with any population, there are extremists and so yes, they are there too. But why should Muslims be "checked"? Maybe you'd have them wear a yellow crescent on their clothes too? Just to make sure they could be "checked" if they should suddenly turn terrorist, of course.

**************************************8


It's not just Americans that have to do the changing. You don't think the mindful pawns of the powerbrokers in other states need to stop preaching hate. I don't think it's a coincidence that the largest growing sectors of the fringe elements of religion come from economically poor areas and prisons.

And who was primarily responsible for creating that reality? Ever heard of blow back? Not to throw more Chomsky your way, but when a colonial power so dominates and squeezes other states, it's not always possible for the dominated states to give much more. The colonial power, on the other hand, should have plenty to give and this would probably be relatively painless to do. More importantly, the dominant power being the architect of the situation, has a moral obligation to do so. There are hate-mongers on both sides, but when the one side also has everything from nuclear weapons to death squads at its disposal, their hate-mongering (Dobbs, Limbaugh, Coulter, there's a long list...) carries a whole lot more weight.

Perhaps 911 has some similarities with the Kennedy Assassination, but that is precisely why we should be asking these questions. Unless you believe that a bullet can change trajectory in mid air, Kennedy was not killed by Oswald, that's pretty much a given, and the fact that any other possibilities are dismissed as conspiracy theories, pretty much leaves that generation holding the questions in their hands indefinitely. I would like to hope that we've progressed a bit further as a society and could start to face some of the difficult questions surrounding our big event.

This has nothing to do with being progressive or conservative either. There will always be nut jobs on both sides who will believe and preach the most unlikely scenarios, but somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Rather than also dumping all this uncertainty into the proverbial dustbin of history and create another disaffected generation with its associated social consequences, I think we owe it to our generation to ask the questions and answer them. Nay, it's not so much the Kennedy Assassination of our generation as it is an American Reichstag. The parallels with Nazi Germany are disturbingly numerous, don't you think? In the words of the perpetual philosopher figure: this has all happened before.

[ForeverAutumn]

For your information, Ayaan Ali is what most would consider a conservative (member of the Dutch Ultra-Right Party, read: anti-Muslim), but she never disavows her faith, despite the Fatwa on her head. She's essentially been dealt the same punishment as Salman Rushdie, and yet she perseveres. That's the type of courage we need right now, not guns and angry rhetoric.

You're wrong about that nightflier. She quite clearly states in her book that she no longer believes in her religion and has become an atheist. Although she was a very devout Conservative Muslim as a young woman. She began to question her religion even before she escaped Somalia and her marriage.

[nightflier]

Well Ali is a bit ambiguous on that. in 2007 "Ali described her intellectual and religious journey as one in which she "lost respect not for Muslims but for what they fear." Stating she was accused of hating Muslims, and vilifying the Qur'an and Muhammad, she clarified that she did not hate Muslims, but rather the submission of free will. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali). She has said that she is an atheist, but then later said that she isn't. More recently she said that was praying again, so I think she's still trying to find out where she stands.

But you are correct that she did disavow her faith in both public statements and in writing, which in Islam is pretty much the worst crime she could commit. On the other hand, she has many times contradicted that and returned to the faith. I guess being so rooted in such absolutist conservatism is a bit of mind-bender. As they say: the bond that binds too tightly snaps itself.

[markw]

Apparently, you think sharia law and living under the muslim influence is the bee's knees. But, I don't see you doing anything to make that a reality. ...or are you,, only covertly.

did you do that google I suggested? Interesting, eh? did that give you hope?

Perhaps you should be under investigation. hmmmmm?

And, I still don't see your wife saying that she loved it. Only you putting words in her mouth. Keep that woman in line. That's the muslim way.

Face it, if you can justify sharia law, you're a misogynist. Period, end of discussion.

sometimes I think you post just to post and say nothing. Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content.

[02audionoob]

Really? Because the intent can be just as malevolent and controlling...

I don't understand this reaction to what I said, but to summarize my own thoughts:

1. Some people's knowledge of Texas, Alabama or other states in the southern US seems to be limited to tired stereotypes. My own education in the Texas public schools and colleges never once included a class on religion.

2. Atheists seem to have self-righteous certainty to equal or exceed the Christians, Jews and Muslims...combined.

3. These posts that require a dictionary and a thesaurus would probably be better off to just say what they mean and mean what they say.

[nightflier]

Apparently, you think sharia law and living under the muslim influence is the bee's knees. But, I don't see you doing anything to make that a reality. ...or are you,, only covertly.

Interesting how you don't address any of my points and just jump straight to insults and incongruous associations. I never said Sharia law was the bee's knees. What I said was that you are confusing Sharia law with Islam as a whole. Your xenophobic posturing about the threat of Islam, is not only completely unsubstantiated, but also akin to hate-mongering.

Let me repeat this: I abhor Sharia law and the injustice that women and children under it must endure. That said, I will not go propounding that this is cause for another crusade against it. And neither is the supposed spread of Islam a cause for another crusade. Such talk only gives Muslim extremists their reason for being - you're creating your own self-fulfilling prophesy that way - how convenient.


did you do that google I suggested? Interesting, eh? did that give you hope?

Yes and it bored me.


Perhaps you should be under investigation. hmmmmm?

So I should be under investigation for what exactly? Having an opinion that differs from yours? Urging cooperation and understanding between cultures and religions? Calling out paranoiac xenophobes? Pray, do tell.


And, I still don't see your wife saying that she loved it. Only you putting words in her mouth. Keep that woman in line. That's the muslim way.

She didn't and neither did I, but we respected the will of the people who so gratiously allowed us to visit them, who opened their homes to us, and who fed us. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Christian, so you can stop with your ignorant taunts too. They make you sound rather silly, don't you think?


Face it, if you can justify sharia law, you're a misogynist. Period, end of discussion.

Justify it? Huh? That's not my place. I acknowledge it exists and I accept that some people prefer it. I don't want it in my neighborhood, but then again I don't have any fear that it will arrive there. Your fears really are based on extreme views, you know. They are neither mainstream nor factual. You really should check your facts.


sometimes I think you post just to post and say nothing. Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content.

That is your biassed opininion, as uneducated as you've made it clear it is. In the case of this thread, I posted to respond to some pretty idiotic asumptions. Sharia law is not the same thing as Muslim immigration. The longer you keep repeating that nonsense, the further we'll get from the truth. And your assertions that Islam is some kind of ideological plague that is bathed in violence sand should be responded to in kind, sounds so much like the rhetoric of National Socialism that it aught to raise a few more eyebrows.

Seriously, you really need to travel more.

[markw]

This thread was about the brutality of sharia law. That you got it off-topic is to your credit, but off-topic it is. No matter what you said in your last post, you had nothing to argue with it's it's impentation. In fact, all your posts read like a tourist brocure for it.

And, I've never "taunted" your or anyome's religion, or lack thereof, although I do suspect you harbor a distinct desire for the stricter sharia law structure. It would give you more control over those around you, at least the women.

That you say my suggested google search "bored" you tells me that there was simply too much evidence to support my statements. So, why IS there so much muslim terrorism in the one western country that allowed a bit of sharia law into it's books? Coincidence, or simply a side-effect of the muslim influence in general? Hmmmmm...?

It's too bad you mix so few valid statements with your patented 99% bullshiite that it's impossible to tell one from the other. Argue if you want, but since you'll be doing with yourself, it will truly be mental masturbation.

I've stated my case, and so have you.

[Luvin Da Blues]

:sleep:

[bobsticks]

And who was primarily responsible for creating that reality? Ever heard of blow back? Not to throw more Chomsky your way, but when a colonial power so dominates and squeezes other states, it's not always possible for the dominated states to give much more. The colonial power, on the other hand, should have plenty to give and this would probably be relatively painless to do. More importantly, the dominant power being the architect of the situation, has a moral obligation to do so. There are hate-mongers on both sides, but when the one side also has everything from nuclear weapons to death squads at its disposal, their hate-mongering (Dobbs, Limbaugh, Coulter, there's a long list...) carries a whole lot more weight.

Economic partnership doesn't equate to the physical realities of insurgency and colonialism. We buy a product. They sell that product and make a huge profit from it but, in turn, do nothing to take care of the 99% of the population not profiting from the gold in the desert. What they do, however, is in order to ameliorate a population that is everyday groing younger and poorer is refocus their anger.

I'm surprised in your many travels it never dawned on you that a majority of the leaders in the Middle East are quite secular.


Perhaps 911 has some similarities with the Kennedy Assassination, but that is precisely why we should be asking these questions. Unless you believe that a bullet can change trajectory in mid air, Kennedy was not killed by Oswald, that's pretty much a given, and the fact that any other possibilities are dismissed as conspiracy theories, pretty much leaves that generation holding the questions in their hands indefinitely. I would like to hope that we've progressed a bit further as a society and could start to face some of the difficult questions surrounding our big event. .

Actually, every bullet changes direction midflight...every single on of them. The degree of that change can be altered by barrel modifications, changing or coating the jacket, hot-rodding grain loads and, of course, natural issues like windsheer.

I agree that Oswald was a toady and that there is certainly some element of conspiracy involved in that incident, it's just that the words you typed do nothing to elevate your argument.


This has nothing to do with being progressive or conservative either. There will always be nut jobs on both sides who will believe and preach the most unlikely scenarios, but somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Rather than also dumping all this uncertainty into the proverbial dustbin of history and create another disaffected generation with its associated social consequences, I think we owe it to our generation to ask the questions and answer them. Nay, it's not so much the Kennedy Assassination of our generation as it is an American Reichstag. The parallels with Nazi Germany are disturbingly numerous, don't you think? In the words of the perpetual philosopher figure: this has all happened before.

I appreciate the way that you waited some years before converting a national tragedy into an implication of the corruption of the American system. Perhaps you should visit a Fire Department or Police Precinct in NYC and share your views.

[bobsticks]

I don't understand this reaction to what I said, but to summarize my own thoughts:

1. Some people's knowledge of Texas, Alabama or other states in the southern US seems to be limited to tired stereotypes. My own education in the Texas public schools and colleges never once included a class on religion..

My intent was not single out the South. I have spent significant time in Dallas, Florida, georgia and Louisianna. There I have been received almost universally with warmth, hospitality and civility.

My intent was to point out that the Middle East doesn't have a stranglehold on religious fundamentalism and extremism. As Americans we can't afford to be hypocritical on this issue. I have indeed, on occasion, seen it in the South...as I have on the Eastern seaboard and in the Midwest.


2. Atheists seem to have self-righteous certainty to equal or exceed the Christians, Jews and Muslims...combined.

Um...okay...but I'm not an athiest. I am, however, an individual that believes that people, all people, shouldn't be descrimated against (and definitely not exterminated) for spiritual beliefs that can neither be quantified nor qualified.


3. These posts that require a dictionary and a thesaurus would probably be better off to just say what they mean and mean what they say.

Much like everyone on these boards, I'm a busy guy. I tend to write quickly and off-the-cuff. It's not my responsibilty to take extra time to write down to the lowest common denominator.

[3LB]

This thread was about the brutality of sharia law.
ok

I've stated my case

what was that again?

sharia law is bad? - sure is

the muslims are coming the muslims are coming? - so


Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content.same can be said for those who beat around the bush

I get a strong impression yer not really saying all you have to say on the subject of muslim immigration (you keep touching on it) - so lets hear it. Since it is clearly a problem in your eyes, what's the plan?

[nightflier]

I'm surprised in your many travels it never dawned on you that a majority of the leaders in the Middle East are quite secular.

Secular towards conservative Islamic movements, yes, at least for most countries. But that hardly makes them model leaders because they still imprison, torture, and execute more dissidents than in any state in the world. I'm not blind to the fact that conservative Islam is the backbone for their opposition, but like so many issues we're covering here, this isn't as black & white as some here would like it to be.


Actually, every bullet changes direction midflight...every single on of them. The degree of that change can be altered by barrel modifications, changing or coating the jacket, hot-rodding grain loads and, of course, natural issues like windsheer.

Isn't that a making a mountain out of a grassy knoll? You're talking about mild fluctuations in directions, but the kind turn Oswald's single bullet had to have made could not have occurred by barrel modifications or hot-rodding grain loads. And why would Oswald do any of that? Sticks, let's not start fabricating plausibilities Limbaugh-style, now. How did you put that so elegantly again? Oh yes, and I quote: "it's just that the words you typed do nothing to elevate your argument."


I appreciate the way that you waited some years before converting a national tragedy into an implication of the corruption of the American system. Perhaps you should visit a Fire Department or Police Precinct in NYC and share your views.

You appreciate that? Uh, yeah.

Obviously the NYC police and fire departments bore much of the brunt of the aftermath of the attack (calling it a tragedy sort of whitewashes it, IMO). So yes, the expectation on a political level is that they would be pretty resistant to any suggestions that there was some home-grown participation and neglect on the part of our own officials. Yet, after having experienced first-hand this same administration's continued neglect of the concerns from victims, injured officers, firemen, construction workers and their families, that black & white distinction is not so clear anymore. The fact is, there is widespread discontent in the NYPD and NYFD with the administration's flip-flopping and back-tracking on recognizing their sacrifices.

By the way, you never answered my question: what is so blatantly false about Chomsky's research?

[nightflier]

This thread was about the brutality of sharia law. That you got it off-topic is to your credit, but off-topic it is. No matter what you said in your last post, you had nothing to argue with it's it's impentation. In fact, all your posts read like a tourist brocure for it.

And, I've never "taunted" your or anyome's religion, or lack thereof, although I do suspect you harbor a distinct desire for the stricter sharia law structure. It would give you more control over those around you, at least the women.

That you say my suggested google search "bored" you tells me that there was simply too much evidence to support my statements. So, why IS there so much muslim terrorism in the one western country that allowed a bit of sharia law into it's books? Coincidence, or simply a side-effect of the muslim influence in general? Hmmmmm...?

It's too bad you mix so few valid statements with your patented 99% bullshiite that it's impossible to tell one from the other. Argue if you want, but since you'll be doing with yourself, it will truly be mental masturbation.

I've stated my case, and so have you.

This is the voice of extremism: "Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content."

(And apparently I'm not the only one who's wondering what your point was).

[markw]

This is the voice of extremism: "Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content."

(And apparently I'm not the only one who's wondering what your point was).I think I was pretty clear. That you can't understand it means you're lost in your own verbose, rambling bullshiite, as usual.

How do you walk with that big head of yours? Training wheels, or do you need a snorkel stuck out of your arse to breathe?

[02audionoob]

My intent was not single out the South. I have spent significant time in Dallas, Florida, georgia and Louisianna. There I have been received almost universally with warmth, hospitality and civility.

My intent was to point out that the Middle East doesn't have a stranglehold on religious fundamentalism and extremism. As Americans we can't afford to be hypocritical on this issue. I have indeed, on occasion, seen it in the South...as I have on the Eastern seaboard and in the Midwest.



Um...okay...but I'm not an athiest. I am, however, an individual that believes that people, all people, shouldn't be descrimated against (and definitely not exterminated) for spiritual beliefs that can neither be quantified nor qualified.



Much like everyone on these boards, I'm a busy guy. I tend to write quickly and off-the-cuff. It's not my responsibilty to take extra time to write down to the lowest common denominator.

None of my points were aimed at you.

Regarding the Texas, Alabama issue and referring to Feanor's post...often people perpetuate a stereotype and try to pass it off as an intelligent thought.

Regarding atheists...again referring to Feanor's post in this thread as an example, atheists often complain about the Christians trying to impose their beliefs on others, while the atheists do the same.

Regarding the way posts are written...I was referring to the opposite of your style. Your style is the one I was favoring, even if I didn't understand one of your comments. I am actually amazed sometimes at the composition of some of the longer posts, so really I guess they don't bother me. I still sometimes read them, but usually only scan.

[markw]

ok


what was that again?

sharia law is bad? - sure isYou basically got it, You really didn't realize that?


the muslims are coming the muslims are coming? - soWe'll both be dead and gone if they do succeed in what I mentioned in a previous post (read a little more carefully if you didn't understand it. It's there, in bold print, with a nice link, but that may take a little effort and thinking.)

But, I have five grand-kids so far and they might be the "beneficiaries" of their takeover, if this country allows it. I take it you either don't have kids or don't care about the world they live in.


same can be said for those who beat around the bush

I get a strong impression yer not really saying all you have to say on the subject of muslim immigration (you keep touching on it) - so lets hear it. Since it is clearly a problem in your eyes, what's the plan?Why do you say that? Because I don't want this country run under islamic/sharia law? Do you have a problem with that? Get crackin' and make babies. It ain't easy, but if enough "non-islamic" people do it, it could work out. Again, another link I posted. Betcha you didn't bother to click it either.

Now, if you can still say you don't understand what I said, perhaps you shouldn't reproduce.

boy, talk about beating around the bush...

[ForeverAutumn]

None of my points were aimed at you. My point on the Texas, Alabama issue is that people like Feanor perpetuate a stereotype and try to pass it off as an intelligent thought. My point on atheists is that, again using Feanor as an example, they often complain about the Christians trying to impose their beliefs on others, while the atheists do the same. My point on the way posts are written was about exactly the opposite of your style. Your style is the one I was favoring, even if I didn't understand one of your comments.

Now who's stereotyping? I've known that I was an atheist for approximately 30 years. I've had people of many religions tell me I was going to hell, tell me that they'll pray for me, and try to convert me. I even had a co-worker completely stop talking to me when he found out I was atheist. I've never tried to convert anyone of religious belief to atheism. Believe what you want, frankly, its none of my business.

Don't complain about stereotypes and then impose yours on me.

[02audionoob]

Now who's stereotyping? I've known that I was an atheist for approximately 30 years. I've had people of many religions tell me I was going to hell, tell me that they'll pray for me, and try to convert me. I even had a co-worker completely stop talking to me when he found out I was atheist. I've never tried to convert anyone of religious belief to atheism. Believe what you want, frankly, its none of my business.

Don't complain about stereotypes and then impose yours on me.

My comment was not a stereotype. It was an obeservation on the battle that often goes on between atheists and Christians. I didn't impose a stereotype on anyone, including you. A stereotype would be when one assumes everyone living in the south is a religious extremist.

[bobsticks]

Secular towards conservative Islamic movements, yes, at least for most countries. But that hardly makes them model leaders because they still imprison, torture, and execute more dissidents than in any state in the world. I'm not blind to the fact that conservative Islam is the backbone for their opposition, but like so many issues we're covering here, this isn't as black & white as some here would like it to be.

Thank you for proving my point though "conservative" Islam is not their backbone...greed is . Moreover, "extremist' or "fundamentalist" Islam is the issue, but I appreciate how you tried to may a symbiotic connection between one thing, universally despised in the educated world, and a second thing, a modern political movement that you use as a basis for your anti-Americanism.

For the last few months of his life my grandfather's personal physician had the dubious distinction of having been responsible for maintaining Saadam whilst he was awaiting trail. From his accounts I can assure you that the man was a fixer, a dealer, and a powerbroker...and from the accounts of this accomplished man I can tell you that the same is true throughout the leadership of that blighted part of the world.

Simply put, yer boys need to stop tellin' their boys to kill oyr boys...




Isn't that a making a mountain out of a grassy knoll? You're talking about mild fluctuations in directions, but the kind turn Oswald's single bullet had to have made could not have occurred by barrel modifications or hot-rodding grain loads. And why would Oswald do any of that? Sticks, let's not start fabricating plausibilities Limbaugh-style, now. How did you put that so elegantly again? Oh yes, and I quote: "it's just that the words you typed do nothing to elevate your argument."

Um, no...it isn't...I can make a .338 Lapua round skip across water or a .223/5.56 military round ricochet off concrete at will. Moreover, what you meant was the "angle at which the shot was placed" was inconceivable...at least by Oswald...

...and you seem to have overlooked the fact that I agreed with you that it seemed implausible given the circumstances.


By the way, you never answered my question: what is so blatantly false about Chomsky's research?

Cuz I don't have to. The original point of this thread was the specifics of a case involving Sharia Law and it's results within the modern context. The fact that you've managed to pull it so far off-topic and involve Islam as a whole and your references of an archaic worldview aren't compelling.

Btw, since you've mentioned to reference, and imply, a connection between Limbaugh and I...lemme say this: the fact that you could mistake me for a far right-winger is lamentable but, further, the fact that you would imply that the Far-Right of this country and their admittedly morose invective could be in any way commensurate with the evil of the Moulahs in the Madrassahs is pathetic.

I've yet to see Limbaugh, Coulter, et al. criticized for having arranged a bombing of a Mosque, a discotheque, or a pizzeria...no matter how much I may disavow their stances.

[ForeverAutumn]

My comment was not a stereotype. It was an obeservation on the battle that often goes on between atheists and Christians. I didn't impose a stereotype on anyone, including you. A stereotype would be when one assumes everyone living in the south is a religious extremist.

...or that all atheists try to impost their beliefs on others. Perhaps your point was poorly worded, but it sounded like a stereotype to me. Thanks for the clarification.

[02audionoob]

...or that all atheists try to impost their beliefs on others. Perhaps your point was poorly worded, but it sounded like a stereotype to me. Thanks for the clarification.

My comment was not poorly worded, nor was it a stereotype. To say that members of one group often are guilty of the same transgressions as those of an opposing group is not a stereotype.

[nightflier]

...that when someone starts to slip in a discussion here, they see no other out but to resort to insults and incongruities that further debases their own position.


But, I have five grand-kids so far and they might be the "beneficiaries" of their takeover, if this country allows it. I take it you either don't have kids or don't care about the world they live in.

Takeover? Islam is going to take over here in the states? How much of a paranoid xenophobe are you, really?


Because I don't want this country run under islamic/sharia law? Do you have a problem with that? Get crackin' and make babies. It ain't easy, but if enough "non-islamic" people do it, it could work out.

Fornicate ourselves out of the Islamic takeover? H.F. Verwoerd, one of the more colorful architects of South African Apartheid, made a speech just like that once...


Now, if you can still say you don't understand what I said, perhaps you shouldn't reproduce.

I have a better idea: maybe people like you should not reproduce. We've had enough internment camps, pointless wars, and mass murdering to last a few more generations, thank you.

How exactly is your point of view different from National Socialism?

[3LB]

perhaps you shouldn't reproduce...boy, talk about beating around the bush...


heh heh heh :ihih:



It's there, in bold print, with a nice link, but that may take a little effort and thinking.
man, yer posts reek of effort

:ciappa:

[ForeverAutumn]

My comment was not poorly worded, nor was it a stereotype.

Well, I read it as a stereotype. And I've reread it and it still sounds like a stereotype. So either it was one or the other.


To say that members of one group often are guilty of the same transgressions as those of an opposing group is not a stereotype.

Let's review what you said.

My point on atheists is that...they often complain about the Christians trying to impose their beliefs on others, while the atheists do the same.

You never actually say that Christians try to impose their beliefs on others. What you say is that Atheists complain of it. There is no comparison between opposing beliefs here, only inference of what you think Atheists complain about.

[bobsticks]

We could review all we want...my bottom line....and Fall Girl, you and I should know each otha well enuff by now...I truthfully do not believe that the "Noob" is doing anything other than standing up for hid beliefs and his view...

Frankly...whether you and I agree with it or not... i believe his comments were directed toward Feanor...in any case, this may not be a battle (in the war) that's worth fighting

[ForeverAutumn]

We could review all we want...my bottom line....and Fall Girl, you and I should know each otha well enuff by now...I truthfully do not believe that the "Noob" is doing anything other than standing up for hid beliefs and his view...

Frankly...whether you and I agree with it or not... i believe his comments were directed toward Feanor...in any case, this may not be a battle (in the war) that's worth fighting

I agree. I didn't mean to sound argumentative, but the way that things have been going around here for the last couple of days I can understand how easily that assumption can be made. I was just trying to point out that audionoob was not being as clear as he thought he was.

I wasn't taking offense at his words, which is why I thanked him for clarifying. But he continued to insist that his comment was not poorly worded and I wanted to show him the flaw in his statement.

Believe me, I'm not about to take this thread into yet another irrelevant direction.

It has made for fun reading the last couple of days though. :biggrin5:

Audionoob, I apologize if my last post sounded like I was trying to start a fight. That was not my intent.

[02audionoob]

Audionoob, I apologize if my last post sounded like I was trying to start a fight. That was not my intent.

Just as an objective observation…not an intent of my own to start something…I believe your comments definitely warranted a reply.


You never actually say that Christians try to impose their beliefs on others. What you say is that Atheists complain of it. There is no comparison between opposing beliefs here, only inference of what you think Atheists complain about.

I would say you’re disregarding critical context. I was speaking in response to the implication that the Christians have a history of imposing their beliefs on others…and conceding that point. My point was to say neither side is innocent.


Well, I read it as a stereotype. And I've reread it and it still sounds like a stereotype. So either it was one or the other.

Based on the personal experiences you’ve described maybe your reaction was affected by what you expected my comments to mean, rather than what they really mean.
　
As bobsticks notes, I’m entitled to stand up for what I believe…which might be quite different than you’d expect. And you, of course, are entitled to object to it.

[Mr Peabody]

If I may, in defense of Christianity, "imposing" it, is wrong according to doctrine. One is to submit to the will of God, if that person is persecuted and then submits, they really aren't submitting to God they are submitting to the persecutor. Jesus instructed the apostles to spread the Word but if they go into a town where no one will listen to dust off their feet and leave. No where in the New Testament which is binding on people in these times do you see "imposing". If any one was persecuted it was Jews and Christians. This is only referring to the writing in the New Testament. God gave us free will who is any man to try and take it away? Well, that is if one believes in God.

One can call themselves what they will but it don't make it so. History is full of much evil that was done in the name of Christianity. The thing about the Bible is the same with any book if you cherry pick lines here and there you can make it say pretty much what you want. To understand a book it has to be taken complete and in context, it does help to grasp the intended meaning.

[ForeverAutumn]

As bobsticks notes, I’m entitled to stand up for what I believe…which might be quite different than you’d expect. And you, of course, are entitled to object to it.

Absolutely! The freedom to say and think as we like. Freedom. That's what this entire thread comes down to.

[Rich-n-Texas]

...that when someone starts to slip in a discussion here, they see no other out but to resort to insults and incongruities that further debases their own position.

Are you... paying attention here pixelthis???

(Hoping I just pissed off pixie's friends... oh, wait...) :sosp:

Irregardless, I'm taking this one with me! :biggrin5:

[3LB]

Oh...playing the irregardless card now are we...

[bobsticks]

Oh...playing the irregardless card now are we...

LMAO...between that and the "beating around the bush" I'd give you a greenie if I could.

[markw]

...that when someone starts to slip in a discussion here, they see no other out but to resort to insults and incongruities that further debases their own position.[[/when you veer so far off the topic that's all you deserve.



[QUOTE=nightflier]Takeover? Islam is going to take over here in the states? How much of a paranoid xenophobe are you, really?I take it my references to England and the links provided didn't sink in. Oh, yeah, doing some reading "bored you".

So, don't expect any sympathy.

But, with your feelings it's a no-brainer that you'll let it slip in without a whimper of protest. After all, you're not a woman, technically.




Fornicate ourselves out of the Islamic takeover? H.F. Verwoerd, one of the more colorful architects of South African Apartheid, made a speech just like that once.Right, I'll bet you didn't even click on that lank either.. Too lazy, or just bored again?


I have a better idea: maybe people like you should not reproduce. We've had enough internment camps, pointless wars, and mass murdering to last a few more generations, thank you.I love how you drag in interment camps out of nowhere. Are you really that desperate and disingenuous that you have to stoop to that?

anyhow, I've got five grown boys and, so far, five grand kids and counting. We're doing our share to preserve our way of life. ...and all the boys are good with guns.

You better start humpin' and make some more whiny liberal moron babies if you want to turn that around. but that takes some effort, lack of selfishness, and commitment, doesn't it.


How exactly is your point of view different from National Socialism?How exactly do you see it as similar? (don't expect a serious answer. I just want to send YOU on a wild goose chase for a change)

[nightflier]

Wild goose chase? Hardly, it's pretty plain in your posts: your fear-mongering about the spread of Islam smacks of the same extreme views that were used to justify the most heinous crimes of the last century. The whites against the blacks in South Africa, the Turks against the Armenians, the Khmer Rouge against the Buddhists, the Chinese government against Tibetans, The Japanese against the Koreans, and yes, the Nazis against Jews and "Slavic peoples". It's scapegoating of the worst kind and you're slipping down a very slippery slope with those statements. The part about fornicating our way out of it, is certainly not original, either. It's been said before and with horrid consequences.

More importantly, your opinions create hysteria about something that is truly very remote. The idea that we will one day have Sharia law here in the States is ludicrous. Likewise, the idea that Sharia law will be the law of the land in Britain is also extremely distant. I've been to England, talked to people there, read the papers, and while there are certainly concerns about the growing Muslim population, they are still only a small percentage:

Total population = just under 50M
Muslim population = 2.4M

By the way, 85% of the people there are also white (Indo-European), in case that was bothering you, too. But this is a broad brush, we're painting with, because of those 2.4M Muslims, only a small portion practice or agree with Sharia law, and an even smaller number believe in violent terrorism as a means of advancing their beliefs. And by small number, I'm talking about an extremely small fraction of the Muslim population. As a matter of fact, the British security forces have been relying heavily on cooperation from secular Muslims and they have done a remarkable job of policing their own extremists. There are still terrorist attacks, yes, but they hardly represent the views or methods of the vast majority of Muslims there.

Let's also remember that the event described in the original post did not occur in England at all. It occurred in the Sudan, which is not only a country at war, but a good portion of that war is being waged between Christians and Muslims. This fact must also be on the minds of the people involved, from the victims all the way up to the judges and the government and therefore affects their decisions. I'm sure if we went to any other war-torn place around the world (there are lots to choose from, these days), we would find some pretty objectionable cruelty there as well.

Therefore, I consider your point of view, not only extreme, but also incendiary. Now I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion about it, but by the same token your post also should be responded to with actual facts rather than hysteria. When it comes to Religion, history has shown us over & over again that the most effective and lasting solution is a peaceful one. A call to arms isn't going to do anything but light the proverbial powederkeg. This is not a liberal point of view, BTW, it is a factual one.

[markw]

Geez, you sure do love to dig up irrelevant bullshiite and try to throw it at people, don't ya?

It's amazing at how you ignore what doesn't suit you and you just go on digging up more random crap, sorta like the energizer bunny of bullshiite,

Look how well you're doing with mexicans in southern california. Who runs that again?

[nightflier]

Well you're the one who brought up England and the growth of Islam there, no?

[markw]

Well you're the one who brought up England and the growth of Islam there, no?And, by your own words, you "got bored" looking through the results of the google search I suggested.

Ignorance is bliss, eh? Or is that your attempt at "plausible deniability"?

Oh, I get it! You didn't even bother to do the search!

You don't bother to read what others post. You just keep spewing forth your verbal diarrhea in the hopes you'll elicit a response and further derail the subject!

Do you really crave attention that badly?

[nightflier]

Look, you brought it up, and through your posts a pretty dark side poked through. I'm just pointing it out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If I may, in defense of Christianity, "imposing" it, is wrong according to doctrine. One is to submit to the will of God, if that person is persecuted and then submits, they really aren't submitting to God they are submitting to the persecutor. Jesus instructed the apostles to spread the Word but if they go into a town where no one will listen to dust off their feet and leave. No where in the New Testament which is binding on people in these times do you see "imposing". If any one was persecuted it was Jews and Christians. This is only referring to the writing in the New Testament. God gave us free will who is any man to try and take it away? Well, that is if one believes in God.

Just wading in here...this is absolutely correct. And when you find Christians trying to impose their will (see the works of the Catholic Church) they are out of the will of God


One can call themselves what they will but it don't make it so. History is full of much evil that was done in the name of Christianity. The thing about the Bible is the same with any book if you cherry pick lines here and there you can make it say pretty much what you want. To understand a book it has to be taken complete and in context, it does help to grasp the intended meaning.

Also correct. However there is a dangerous undercurrent that is floating amongst the current church. The "literal" interpretation of scripture when it was meant for symbolic, and the reverse. Another disease is the pious judgement of others, when that is not our place. We are constantly displacing what is historical, and placing it wrongfully into the present. For instance, in the old testament, God commanded the children of Israel to destroy their enemies, man, women and children. To use this as a justification for war today would completely ignore the loving words of Jesus Christ found in John 13:34,35, John 15:12 and 17, Romans 12:10 and Romans 13:8. George W. Bush who was supposed to be a Godly man, did this at least twice, and was probably the best cherry picker in my lifetime.

[3LB]

You just keep spewing forth your verbal diarrhea in the hopes you'll elicit a response and further derail the subject!


so what's he guilty of...beating us to it ;)






np: new Muse!

[markw]

so what's he guilty of...beating us to it ;)I answered your concerns in post 54. Try to keep up, will ya? ...or back to the "special" bus for you.

BTW, I do give you credit for sanding up to Feanor with his Texas/Alabama comparison to Afghanistan. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

[markw]

Look, you brought it up, and through your posts a pretty dark side poked through. I'm just pointing it out.Are you saying that it cannot happen here?

Are you saying that we should face the future fat, happy and stupid with eyes closed to the possibilities?

Remember, it's already gained a foothold in England and was recently voted down in Canada. Europe seems poised too. That bulge on the side of the tent just might be the camel.

[nightflier]

Remember, it's already gained a foothold in England and was recently voted down in Canada. Europe seems poised too. That bulge on the side of the tent just might be the camel.

Nonsense. Are you just willfully ignoring the numbers?

[markw]

Nonsense. Are you just willfully ignoring the numbers?Not now, but check af those numbers a few years down the road.

Didn't you read ANYTHING I posted?

[nightflier]

All that we know is what is true now. The links you posted make predictions based in hysteria. They repeatedly interchange terms like foreign-born, Muslim, and Sharia law to make the supposed threat that much more fantastic. And the sources are right up your alley, too, from overly conservative and paranoid sources. Look, I can find sources that make all sorts of amazing predictions on the net, and they will still be just predictions from debatable sources. What we do know is that Muslims make up a small fraction of the population in England and other Western countries (between 2 & 4%, in most cases). Likewise, the numbers of those who practice of Sharia law is a fraction of that, and of those, the ones who participate in violence is infinitesimally small.

You are just fear-mongering, plain and simple and it comes from a rather disturbing political position. You are just ignoring the facts and letting your paranoia dictate your judgment.

[markw]

All that we know is what is true now. The links you posted make predictions based in hysteria. They repeatedly interchange terms like foreign-born, Muslim, and Sharia law to make the supposed threat that much more fantastic. And the sources are right up your alley, too, from overly conservative and paranoid sources. Look, I can find sources that make all sorts of amazing predictions on the net, and they will still be just predictions from debatable sources. What we do know is that Muslims make up a small fraction of the population in England and other Western countries (between 2 & 4%, in most cases). Likewise, the numbers of those who practice of Sharia law is a fraction of that, and of those, the ones who participate in violence is infinitesimally small.

You are just fear-mongering, plain and simple and it comes from a rather disturbing political position. You are just ignoring the facts and letting your paranoia dictate your judgment.Are you saying that it cannot happen here?

Are you saying that we should face the future fat, happy and stupid with eyes closed to the possibilities?

Remember, it's already gained a foothold in England (read the postd link!) and was recently voted down in Canada. Europe seems poised too. That bulge on the side of the tent just might be the camel.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All that we know is what is true now. The links you posted make predictions based in hysteria. They repeatedly interchange terms like foreign-born, Muslim, and Sharia law to make the supposed threat that much more fantastic. And the sources are right up your alley, too, from overly conservative and paranoid sources. Look, I can find sources that make all sorts of amazing predictions on the net, and they will still be just predictions from debatable sources. What we do know is that Muslims make up a small fraction of the population in England and other Western countries (between 2 & 4%, in most cases). Likewise, the numbers of those who practice of Sharia law is a fraction of that, and of those, the ones who participate in violence is infinitesimally small.

You are just fear-mongering, plain and simple and it comes from a rather disturbing political position. You are just ignoring the facts and letting your paranoia dictate your judgment.

I don't think your numbers are quite right. In France alone its 6-9% of the population. In Germany 4.9%. In Cyprus its 18%. Denmark its it 2-3.7%. In Belgium it's 4%. In Albania its 65-70%. Italy 1.7%. The Netherlands 5.5-6%. Sweden its 3%. Switzerland its 4%. England its 3.3%. Spain 3.3%. This is just for Western, Eastern and Southern Europe.

When combined together, that is significantly more than 2-4%. France alone exceeds that. That is not to say these are all sharia law practicioners, but just the Muslim populations in these individual countries.

It is VERY widely believed that no country really practices Sharia law. What they practice now is a Sharia law interpreted solely by weak males looking to keep control of women and children. The real Sharia laws do not do that. This Sharia law we are seeing is a bastardized version of the original.

This is a hard one to call. When one religious group migrates to another country, and then demands that their laws guide their own people in that country, it does give the impression of a law hijack, and ultimately leads to more demands of control. As the migrating population increases, and the native population decreases, a takeover can happen, and if radical enough, with the population permissive enough, it will happen. Any where there are freedoms, this possibility does exist, and one cannot discount it.

Then of course there is the paranoia of the other side to consider as well.

We have seen it in Britian, France, and Canada.

[nightflier]

Well my figures where from Wikipedia, but now that I've double-checked them, they are a bit older. That said, we're still talking about percentages that are very small. Even the fascist parties in those countries outnumber them significantly.

Point is, I'm not too worried, I'm not planning on having lotsa babies because of it, and I'm certainly not going to put guns in the hands of my children for that reason. This supposed fear of Islam is so overblown and misused that I take issue with those who perpetuate it. The numbers just don't support the implied urgency.

[markw]

Well my figures where from Wikipedia, but now that I've double-checked them, they are a bit older. That said, we're still talking about percentages that are very small. Even the fascist parties in those countries outnumber them significantly.

Point is, I'm not too worried, I'm not planning on having lotsa babies because of it, and I'm certainly not going to put guns in the hands of my children for that reason. This supposed fear of Islam is so overblown and misused that I take issue with those who perpetuate it. The numbers just don't support the implied urgency.I can just imagine you as a Native American saying such stuff as a group of them watches the arriving ships carrying the first Europeans.

Ever see the movie "Idiocracy? Check out the red/blue distribution of cities within states for the 2008 presidantal vote and tell me if you see a pattern. This might take a bit of thought, being you're a dyed-in-the-wool bleeding heart liberal and tend to be blind to the stark truth but, you might be able to figure out the connection of the thoughts contained in this paragraph, if you try hard enough.

..and that's not why the boys own guns, silly man. You really do like your straw men, doncha? But, you don't want to break into their homes or try to harm their family, trust me,

[atomicAdam]

I think this thread should get moved into the cage and you all should calm down a bit if not just back away.

[bobsticks]

By the way, 85% of the people there are also white (Indo-European), in case that was bothering you, too. But this is a broad brush, we're painting with, because of those 2.4M Muslims, only a small portion practice or agree with Sharia law, and an even smaller number believe in violent terrorism as a means of advancing their beliefs. And by small number, I'm talking about an extremely small fraction of the Muslim population. As a matter of fact, the British security forces have been relying heavily on cooperation from secular Muslims and they have done a remarkable job of policing their own extremists. There are still terrorist attacks, yes, but they hardly represent the views or methods of the vast majority of Muslims there.




Strangely, i find myself in alignment with 'flier on this one. I have known a great many people that were of the Muslim faith and very few came close to observing the strict laws of "proper Shiara" (and I agree with T that it has largely ben perverted to meet the political needs of certain leaders)

That occurance in Britain needs to be one that is replicated throughout the world. If there is one criticism that can be levied against moderate Muslims it's their reluctance to stand against the extremist fringe.

[3LB]

As the migrating population increases, and the native population decreases, a takeover can happen, and if radical enough, with the population permissive enough, it will happen.

Yes, that's true - white European decendants living in North America is proof of that...I'm still waiting to see what it is we're suppose to do about it (whomever 'we' is).

[nightflier]

Sticks, I really tried to steer this one back to the OT a couple of posts back.

[bobsticks]

Sticks, I really tried to steer this one back to the OT a couple of posts back.

It's all good.

IMHO, any conversation about modern Islam is necessarily going to involve the differentiation between Shiara Law and the "average, everyday" Muslim...I didn't move this thread (though I understand why it was moved)...but at the same time I think it's an important conversation...

[ForeverAutumn]

Three Jordanians kill sister over 'bad reputation'

AMMAN (AFP) - Three Jordanian men were charged on Tuesday with premeditated murder after allegedly stabbing to death their divorced sister as well as burning her body and house over her "bad reputation," police said.

"The three brothers all under 30, agreed to kill their 40-year-old sister on Sunday because she allegedly had a bad reputation," in Abu Alanda, in southeast Amman, a police spokesman told AFP.

"She was stabbed 15 times. One of the three told police that the mother of five had a love affair with a man and that he found pictures of the woman sitting with her alleged lover."

The spokesman said the suspects "burned the victim's body and set ablaze her house to cover the crime."

"They were arrested at hospital after being treated for burns. They confessed to the murder," added.

Murder is punishable by the death penalty in Jordan but in the case of so-called "honour killings" a court usually commutes or reduces sentences, particularly if the victim's family urges leniency.

The US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Jordan earlier this month to reform its penal code, which it says condones the murder of women as "honour crimes."

In the past, parliament has refused to institute harsher penalties.

Around 15-20 women are murdered each year in Jordan in the name of honour, despite government efforts to fight such crimes. So far this year, there have been 16 reported.

[nightflier]

I certainly don't mean to lessen the crimes and I do hope the courts in Jordan improve, but it isn't exactly like this type of violence is unheard of here at home. Lemme recount some of the more colorful things that have happened here in the OC:

- Just a couple of weeks ago, a young black woman was found beaten to death and burned beyond recognition in one of the safest cities in America: Irvine, California, right next door to where I live.

- Then a week later, a grad student at UC Irvine sprayed the parking lot with gunfire, shooting his wife in the back and killing her and just barely missing his toddler. Apparently they had had a dispute over money and daycare responsibilities.

- I don't exactly remember when this one happened, I think last summer: a woman leaving her church in her SUV ran over an elderly woman in a walker crushed her head with the tire and drove off leaving the poor woman dead on the road in front of the whole exiting congregation. Why did she do it? Apparently the elderly woman was moving too slow!

- Not too long ago, a man walked up to his business partner in broad daylight in a busy restaurant and shot the man in the face, splattering the whole place with blood. Apparently the poor sap had been too friendly with his partner's wife - how's that for an honor killing?

- Another recent case involved what was first thought to be a home invasion, but turned out to be a domestic dispute: an Asian woman was found hog-tied, hanging in a side-room and beaten to death with a fireplace poke, the bloody thing still hanging in her flesh when they found her.

This is just a partial list, I'm not even going to go into the other cases of child abuse, wife-abuse, rape, racial incidents, and misogynistic crap that goes on in this most safe, most conservative, and most Christian of counties. I'm good friends with an assistant DA, and she can tell you some stories. But you know what really chaps her hide? In almost every case that goes to trial, the defense lawyer brings up the fact that the accused is a good church-going citizen. Then if so, why the unbelievable violence? This is hardly what friggin' Jesus would do.

[Mr Peabody]

I believe the point is in Jordan those types of crimes would result in minor punishment where in the U.S. we have strict laws against them, although, in California it seems you can get away with anything as long as you are white.

[ForeverAutumn]

nightflier, my point wasn't the crime as much as the punishment. You've provided a list of heinous crimes. But what you've neglected to include is the corresponding punishment.

While this article doesn't state the punishiment for the brothers who have murdered their sister, it implies that, by Jordanian law, this is not considered much of a crime since the sister dishonoured her family. What of the man that she had an affair with? Probably nothing...because he's a man and the rules of honour do not apply (I am making assumptions here, admittedly).

Certainly there are instances in both the US and Canada where the court is, for whatever reason, lenient on an offender. However, seldom does the victim's family ask for leniency whereas it's the defence lawyer's job to ask for it.


Not too long ago, a man walked up to his business partner in broad daylight in a busy restaurant and shot the man in the face, splattering the whole place with blood. Apparently the poor sap had been too friendly with his partner's wife - how's that for an honor killing?

This is not an honour killing in the same context. If it were, the man would have killed his wife, not his business partner. What was the killer's punishement? Did the dead business partner's family ask the court for leniency for his killer? I'd bet not.

[nightflier]

The killer got a life sentence, I believe.

My point is that these kinds of crimes are not seen as often in Jordan. While the plight of women is horribly unbalanced, the relative safety of people living in conservative Muslim societies is much better. I repeat, I am not at all making excuses for the men involved in the Jordan cases. They should all be subject to equal laws as women, and I really do hope that someday they will. That said, for all its evils, especially inside the prisons, life in many Muslim countries is safer from violence for a larger part of the population.

This isn't my opinion, that is statistical fact. The kinds of crimes I've described that occurred right in my own county, just don't happen with the same frequency, if at all, in conservative Muslim countries. There are two simple reasons for that: religious conviction and the heavy-handed punishment. I'm not going to suggest for a minute that I'd rather live there than here, but there are many Jordanians who would probably say the same about life here in the US. It should also be pointed out that it's not so much from Jordan that Muslims are emigrating to the West.

What strikes me the most, is that here in the US, life's misfortunes are dealt out much more haphazardly than in many other countries. There is far more unpredictability here. Perhaps it's because more people have guns, maybe our racial problems have never been adequately addressed, or maybe we are more sexually repressed, I don't know. But there is a sense of danger here that does not exist to the same extent in many other countries. I've been in many difficult situations in my life (been mugged a few times, had my house and my car broken into a few times, and have seen my share of violence close-up), but it might surprise you that the vast majority of them have been here in the US, not while traveling abroad.

At some point you have to ask yourself: where are my odds for safety the best? Is it possible that here in the US we are so bombarded by media, entertainment, and talking heads, that we forget this simple equation? Maybe Canada is a lot better, I don't know. I've only been to Quebec on a short lay-over, so I can't say. But it's quite plain that the US no longer has the luster it once had for people other than old, rich, white, healthy men (and I'm not one of those).

[bobsticks]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE7307PW20110401?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

By Kevin Gray

MIAMI (Reuters) - An American Christian preacher who caused an international uproar last year by threatening to burn the Koran has put himself back in the spotlight after incinerating Islam's holy book -- again with deadly consequences.

Thousands of protesters in northern Afghanistan, enraged over news that the Florida pastor Terry Jones had overseen a torching of the Koran, stormed a United Nations compound on Friday, killing at least seven U.N. staff.

Jones, a 58-year-old fundamentalist pastor and the head of a small fringe church in Gainesville, Florida, drew worldwide condemnation in September over his plans to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Several people were killed in protests then in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Jones eventually canceled that event under intense pressure from the U.S. government, the Pope, and other global leaders.

But he has remained an outspoken critic of Islam, and says parts of the Koran can lead to violence and terrorism.

On March 20, he presided over what he called an "International Judge the Koran Day" in which he supervised the burning of the book in front of some 50 people.

Video posted on the website of his Dove World Outreach Center church showed a kerosene-soaked book going up in bright flames in a metal fire pit similar to those often found in backyards and patios, but located inside the church

[ForeverAutumn]

I hope he's proud of himself.

[Hyfi]

But it's OK that they routinely burn American Flags, right?

[ForeverAutumn]

But it's OK that they routinely burn American Flags, right?

No. It's absolutely not okay. But Americans are civilized and don't go around beheading people at the slightest provocation. Why would you poke the animals with a big stick? What did he hope to accomplish? And what did he think would happen?

He's a ****ing moron in my opinion.

[bobsticks]

Yes, there are consequences that could've been forseen but we also believe in the right to peaceful protest.

[GMichael]

Why can't we all just be friends?

[Hyfi]

Why can't we all just be friends?

Because some religions get in the way by telling their sheep that all other religions are bad except for the one they belong to.

Fix that and we all could get along.

Swedenborg, a small obscure division of Christianity is the only one I know of that actually will say that "all religions are just different pathways to the same end".

It is also one of the only churches that would allow a wedding between one of their own, and a Cherokee Indian where they observed both traditions and beliefs into one ceremony.

Try that in a Catholic Church!

[ForeverAutumn]

Yes, there are consequences that could've been forseen but we also believe in the right to peaceful protest.

What's peaceful about burning a flag or the Koran? Actions like that are done with the intent to hurt. Although nobody may be physically injured by the action itself, they are not peaceful in intent or spirit.

Is burning a cross on someone's lawn a peaceful protest?

[noddin0ff]

I think symbolic protestors should take their message to those they wish to convert. If you want to preach to followers of the Koran about the [assumed] errors of their ways, go to the lands of Islam and do it. If you want to burn an American flag, come to the US and do it.

And damn straight its OK to burn an American flag. That's the kind of freedom our country rests upon. And, Jones should be free to burn whatever text he likes. Shame on the rest of the world for giving a rat's nether regions about what some individual of no significant standing wants to burn in his spare time. Shame on Jones for the vainglorious act of preaching to the converted. 'course Jones would not fare well taking his burn approach to his Muslim targets abroad. Perhaps that's an indication that he should think about what it is exactly he hopes to accomplish, if in fact by some slim chance he wants to accomplish something other than drawing more like minded attention to himself...

However, FA's accurate comment about cross burning on other's lawns sounds like a conflict with my statement of taking your message to your target. But, that's the difference between intimidation and free speech. Intimidation = Bad, not peaceful. Protest, non hurtful = freedom.

[Hyfi]

No. It's absolutely not okay. But Americans are civilized and don't go around beheading people at the slightest provocation. Why would you poke the animals with a big stick? What did he hope to accomplish? And what did he think would happen?

He's a ****ing moron in my opinion.

Civilized huh? You haven't been to North Philly or Camden NJ lately.

Maybe we should riot and kill people here every time they burn a flag.

I don't argue the fact that the guy is a bit nutso, but then again, most people I know that are that brainwashed are also a little nutso.

[ForeverAutumn]

I think symbolic protestors should take their message to those they wish to convert. If you want to preach to followers of the Koran about the [assumed] errors of their ways, go to the lands of Islam and do it. If you want to burn an American flag, come to the US and do it.

I have a better idea. How about "live and let live". Don't preach to me. Don't do it from your home and certainly don't come to my home to do it. You live your life and let me live mine (I speak metaphorically, of course).

If more people subscribed to that philosophy the world would be a much better place.

[GMichael]

I agree. Everyone should just live and let live. Anyone who doesn't live that way should be shot in the ars with a barbed bullet.

Oops....

The contents of this post do not reflect the reflections of the views of anyone with a reflection.

[noddin0ff]

I have a better idea. How about "live and let live". Don't preach to me. Don't do it from your home and certainly don't come to my home to do it. You live your life and let me live mine (I speak metaphorically, of course).

If more people subscribed to that philosophy the world would be a much better place.

Agreed. I'm more the for the 'preach by living' style myself. There's nothing so much worth saying that you aren't better off keeping quiet and living it. If a person thinks what they've got to say is so danged important, odds are they're full of themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Isn't that why the web was created?

However, some things are worth protesting and even protesting in the face of others. I just wish e-connected society had some better filters in place to separate grandstanding from substance. I for one, love the occasional self gratifying rant for the sake of entertainment or edutainment. "Prove me wrong and make my day" is my motto of the moment.

[Geoffcin]

Not to condone what Jones did, but if the media didn't cover it so heavily do you think it would have made an uproar?

Why should anyone care what a whacko like Jones does anyway? Why should the media broadcast it to Afganistan like it was big new?

Finally, it's just a modern book, print on paper that's all. It's not like Jones was burning some priceless hand illustrated Koran from the 900's.

Addenum; Does anyone think this anger might also have to do with the fact that hundreds of innocent Afgani have died under American bombs? Jones had nothing to do with that but I don't see it being brought up by the media....

Makes you wonder?

[GMichael]

Because some religions get in the way by telling their sheep that all other religions are bad except for the one they belong to.

Fix that and we all could get along.

I see your point and can see why you would feel that way. IMO though, there are people out there with the mentality that would have them fighting no matter what the reason. Some people are filled with rage and will use any excuse to hate.
Not sure why or what jean causes the issue, but we’d all be safer without it.



Swedenborg, a small obscure division of Christianity is the only one I know of that actually will say that "all religions are just different pathways to the same end".

They’re all the same to me, a belief system that can be great for most, but a reason to hate for others. I find it hard to believe in the stories told by men thousands of years ago when stories of sailing off the end of the planet were also prevalent. But they can be a useful tool in helping to teach children to do unto others as you would have them do onto you. Is it the only tool? No. But it’s a tool non the less. It’s when fanatics take it to the next level(s) that it becomes a problem. Even if you could take away the tool, you’ll never take away the fanatics.


It is also one of the only churches that would allow a wedding between one of their own, and a Cherokee Indian where they observed both traditions and beliefs into one ceremony.

Try that in a Catholic Church!

Do any of the other religions allow weddings of their own to ‘outsiders’? I don’t know too much about the rules.

[Feanor]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE7307PW20110401?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

By Kevin Gray

MIAMI (Reuters) - An American Christian preacher who caused an international uproar last year by threatening to burn the Koran has put himself back in the spotlight after incinerating Islam's holy book -- again with deadly consequences.

Thousands of protesters in northern Afghanistan, enraged over news that the Florida pastor Terry Jones had overseen a torching of the Koran, stormed a United Nations compound on Friday, killing at least seven U.N. staff.

Jones, a 58-year-old fundamentalist pastor and the head of a small fringe church in Gainesville, Florida, drew worldwide condemnation in September over his plans to burn the Koran on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Several people were killed in protests then in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Jones eventually canceled that event under intense pressure from the U.S. government, the Pope, and other global leaders.

But he has remained an outspoken critic of Islam, and says parts of the Koran can lead to violence and terrorism.

On March 20, he presided over what he called an "International Judge the Koran Day" in which he supervised the burning of the book in front of some 50 people.

Video posted on the website of his Dove World Outreach Center church showed a kerosene-soaked book going up in bright flames in a metal fire pit similar to those often found in backyards and patios, but located inside the church

I suspect that Terry Jones is a disingenuous publicity seeker. He had a congregation in the UK (of all places!!) who kicked him out for being a control freak and money-grubbing fraudster. Who can say what Jones really knows or cares about Islam -- or Christianity for that matter.

According to Fareed Zakaria on CNN yesterday, the Jones statement was all but ignored in Afganistan until President Hamid Karzai made a public speech about it, presumably to stoke his own support. Unfortunately for everybody, Taliban operatives decided to take action, kill people, and put the blame on the US.

[markw]

Not a big deal really. It's within his first amendment rights and besides, they have no problem proudly showing brutal, bloody, beheadings on the Internet.

...of course, they aren't man enough to show their faces like the preacher did.

[basite]

Why can't we all just be friends?


reminds me of:
http://www.media.wmg-is.com/media/portal/media/cms/images/200909/603497984169_xl.jpg

Great record... :)

anyhow, it's like FA said "why would you poke the animals with big sticks?", it's provocation.
there are countless other options to approach to a debate with different ideas in this world. why choose the ones that only make things worse?

Jones is an idiot, "free speech", true, which is great, but what he's doing is just lowering himself to the drifty agressive minority, and dragging others with him. Compare it with two kids, the one kid deliberately punches a hole in the other kid's football. The other kid can prove he's just as idiotic to perform such a misdeed by punching a hole in the other kid's football, or hurting him or something alike that, but he can also choose to solve it diplomatically, finding a reason, and a deed with some effect.

That said, I think this is a somewhat wise statement from both a philosopher and a stand up comedian: "you can compare the different religions with certain ages: the Judaism is a conservative old fart (excuse the words), Christianity is in it's midlife crisis, and the Islam is the annoying kid in the middle of his puberty."
not wanting to be offensive in any way, but I find there is some serious food for thought/truth in this quote, and honestly, beside the carefree teen years (although everything is a drama at that age, going from broken nails through ex boy/girlfriends), who wants to be the annoying puberty kid?

I think, right now, Jones is enjoying the publicity, all the attention and rebellion and critics he gets, he's the old fart, trying to be the annoying kid again.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[JohnMichael]

I have a hard time understanding organized religion. Every group thinks they alone know the truth. The Westboro Baptist Church thinks it is okay to protest soldier's funerals. The nut in Florida thinks he can burn someones Holy Book. Others who follow the burnt book now think they can kill innocents. Maybe they should have just travelled to Florida.

Some think they know the ultimate truth and try to control others with their truth. No we are the only ones who are reading the book correctly. We will work to change laws based on our faith. We alone can decide who can marry and what women can do with their bodies. All of this based on books written by men.

God gave us free will and organized religion is trying to take it away.

[Hyfi]

I have a hard time understanding organized religion. Every group thinks they alone know the truth. The Westboro Baptist Church thinks it is okay to protest soldier's funerals. The nut in Florida thinks he can burn someones Holy Book. Others who follow the burnt book now think they can kill innocents. Maybe they should have just travelled to Florida.

Some think they know the ultimate truth and try to control others with their truth. No we are the only ones who are reading the book correctly. We will work to change laws based on our faith. We alone can decide who can marry and what women can do with their bodies. All of this based on books written by men.

God gave us free will and organized religion is trying to take it away.

Thank you for saying that so much better than I could. And don't forget, one of the main reasons the Muslims still want to get back at Christians, is because during the Crusades, the Christians tried to eradicate them because they were right and the others were wrong.

So the message is "We are the only ones that are right, and we will kill you if you don't convert"

Now it's Karma coming back at the western world.

[markw]

No, right or wrong ha nothing to do with it. The crusades were initiated to combat the eastward military takeover of europe by the newly created muslim "religion" and the countries it had overtaken by force. Read up on the Battle of Tours.

[Feanor]

No, right or wrong ha nothing to do with it. The crusades were initiated to combat the eastward military takeover of europe by the newly created muslim "religion" and the countries it had overtaken by force. Read up on the Battle of Tours.
This isn't entirely correct. The Battle of Tours was in 732; it resulted in the exclusion of Muslim powers from France. But the First Crusade began only in 1096. The initial pretext of the First Crusade as to protect the Bysantine Empire from Turkish advances but the objective of western European forces quickly became to occupy the Holy Land, (i.e. Palestine).

[ForeverAutumn]

God gave us free will and organized religion is trying to take it away.

I have been an atheist since I was about 16-yrs-old...and agnostic for several years before that. But this has to be the truest statement about religion that I have ever read (IMHO of course).

Very well said John. Bravo!

[Hyfi]

I have been an atheist since I was about 16-yrs-old...and agnostic for several years before that. But this has to be the truest statement about religion that I have ever read (IMHO of course).

Very well said John. Bravo!

LOL, He is also All Loving and All Forgiving, but there will still be a Judgment Day and you might just be Left Behind!

[recoveryone]

I have a hard time understanding organized religion. Every group thinks they alone know the truth. The Westboro Baptist Church thinks it is okay to protest soldier's funerals. The nut in Florida thinks he can burn someones Holy Book. Others who follow the burnt book now think they can kill innocents. Maybe they should have just travelled to Florida.

Some think they know the ultimate truth and try to control others with their truth. No we are the only ones who are reading the book correctly. We will work to change laws based on our faith. We alone can decide who can marry and what women can do with their bodies. All of this based on books written by men.

God gave us free will and organized religion is trying to take it away.


Written by men inspired by God, I think you left that last part out?

Of all the creatures of the sea and earth man was the only one given Free will made in the image of God.

If you read up on most of the dominate religions of the world, they all are based on the Mosaic law (the first five books of the bible) form there you see how man has gone in many different directions and interpretations.

[JohnMichael]

Written by men inspired by God, I think you left that last part out?

Of all the creatures of the sea and earth man was the only one given Free will made in the image of God.

If you read up on most of the dominate religions of the world, they all are based on the Mosaic law (the first five books of the bible) form there you see how man has gone in many different directions and interpretations.



It is "Inspired by God" where we disagree.

Oh and I should mention I am familiar with the Pentateuch.

[GMichael]

It is "Inspired by God" where we disagree.
That part was written by men as well.

[recoveryone]

That part was written by men as well.

I guess that is where Faith comes into play, just as why is the sky blue and clouds are white, just take it as faith that just the way it is.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

They talkin about religion in this cage....I'm gettin outta here!!!

[GMichael]

I guess that is where Faith comes into play, just as why is the sky blue and clouds are white, just take it as faith that just the way it is.
I can understand faith and support those who want to have that faith. But it was written by men. They may or may not have been truly inspired by God. I rule nothing out.
As far and the white clouds and blue skies, I don’t need faith for those. The reasons have been proven.
I wish people would stop fighting over who's faith is best though.

[ForeverAutumn]

They talkin about religion in this cage....I'm gettin outta here!!!


RUN!

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JohnMichael]

I guess that is where Faith comes into play,.


That of course is your faith and my faith is different. People have the choice to have no faith. I do not know who is right but I live my life as I see fit.

[GMichael]

They talkin about religion in this cage....I'm gettin outta here!!!
We're talking nicely though.:devil:

[Feanor]

I can understand faith and support those who want to have that faith. But it was written by men. They may or may not have been truly inspired by God. I rule nothing out.
As far and the white clouds and blue skies, I don’t need faith for those. The reasons have been proven.
I wish people would stop fighting over who's faith is best though.
Virtually all pious Muslims believe that the Qu'ran is the literal and infallible word of God.

In case of the Bible, virtually all Christians recognize that it was written by at various times by various people, presumably inspired by God. Furthermore it is recognized by most, (or at least very many), Christians that we don't have the original text of the Bible but only transcriptions and translation that might include various inaccuracies.

The situation is different with the Qu'ran. This book was written in a short span of time, (a decade or two). The generally unquestioned belief is that the Angel Gabriel quoted the exact words of God to Mohamed who wrote them down with the help of scribes, (since Mohamed himself was illiterate). There is no issue of original text since the very early texts exist; furthermore there is no issue of translation because only the original Arabic is considered reliable.

[GMichael]

Virtually all pious Muslims believe that the Qu'ran is the literal and infallible word of God.

In case of the Bible, virtually all Christians recognize that it was written by at various times by various people, presumably inspired by God. Furthermore it is recognized by most, (or at least very many), Christians that we don't have the original text of the Bible but only transcriptions and translation that might include various inaccuracies.

The situation is different with the Qu'ran. This book was written in a short span of time, (a decade or two). The generally unquestioned belief is that the Angel Gabriel quoted the exact words of God to Mohamed who wrote them down with the help of scribes, (since Mohamed himself was illiterate). There is no issue of original text since the very early texts exist; furthermore there is no issue of translation because only the original Arabic is considered reliable.

God told Gabriel, who told Mohamed, who told the scribes. In my mind there is still room for issues.
Way way back when I was in high school, one of our teachers wanted to prove a point to us. He went into the hall with one student and showed her a picture to memorize. He came back in with the picture and had a second student go into the hall to have the first girl describe the picture to him. The first girl came back in and then a third student went out. By time we got to the 5th student, the description of the picture sounded nothing like what was actually in the picture.

[Feanor]

God told Gabriel, who told Mohamed, who told the scribes. In my mind there is still room for issues.
....
You might think that, I might think that ... but pious Muslims do not. :D

[ForeverAutumn]

God told Gabriel, who told Mohamed, who told the scribes. In my mind there is still room for issues.
Way way back when I was in high school, one of our teachers wanted to prove a point to us. He went into the hall with one student and showed her a picture to memorize. He came back in with the picture and had a second student go into the hall to have the first girl describe the picture to him. The first girl came back in and then a third student went out. By time we got to the 5th student, the description of the picture sounded nothing like what was actually in the picture.

Hmmmm. The bible by broken telephone. Interesting.

GM, check out a board game called Scribblish. The game is based on exactly what your teacher did. It's hilarious to play and something that I bet your wife would love, from what I know about her. It's perfect for your Xmas eve all-nighters.

http://www.hasbro.com/play/details.cfm?guid=62B95BFC-19B9-F369-10FE-5DCE4267E8B2&src=endeca

[GMichael]

You might think that, I might think that ... but pious Muslims do not. :D
I respect their right to think that. Most of them probably respect my right not to. But it's always the few who f'k it up for everyone else.

[GMichael]

Hmmmm. The bible by broken telephone. Interesting.

GM, check out a board game called Scribblish. The game is based on exactly what your teacher did. It's hilarious to play and something that I bet your wife would love, from what I know about her. It's perfect for your Xmas eve all-nighters.

http://www.hasbro.com/play/details.cfm?guid=62B95BFC-19B9-F369-10FE-5DCE4267E8B2&src=endeca
I'm sure she would love it. But will I?

[ForeverAutumn]

I'm sure she would love it. But will I?

If she's happy then you're happy, so...yes.

[GMichael]

If she's happy then you're happy, so...yes.
Hmmm... Female logic. I see.:p

[Feanor]

I respect their right to think that. Most of them probably respect my right not to. But it's always the few who f'k it up for everyone else.
As for your right not to, unfortunately very many do not.

It's sad really. The Qu'ran and traditional Islamic law in fact require that Jew and Christians be treated well and respected as people of the Abrahamic tradition. And there are many moderate and tolerant Muslims today. But there are also many, especially in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who are highly intolerant.

Of course, there are growing numbers of highly intolerant Christians. I'm speaking of Fundamentalists and the "Christian Right". They are becoming politically powerful and pose, IMO, a genuine threat to democracy in the US. The North American economic malaise will tend to increase their influence as simple-mind people look for supernatural solutions to complex problems.

[Hyfi]

As for your right not to, unfortunately very many do not.

It's sad really. The Qu'ran and traditional Islamic law in fact require that Jew and Christians be treated well and respected as people of the Abrahamic tradition. And there are many moderate and tolerant Muslims today. But there are also many, especially in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who are highly intolerant.

Of course, there are growing numbers of highly intolerant Christians. I'm speaking of Fundamentalists and the "Christian Right". They are becoming politically powerful and pose, IMO, a genuine threat to democracy in the US. The North American economic malaise will tend to increase their influence as simple-mind people look for supernatural solutions to complex problems.

Good response.

I have said for a long time, for most people, their Politics is their Religion. Why do we need to judge everything based on Roe vs Wade? See last statement.

If every political decision and vote is based upon a religious belief, Feanor hit it on the head.

[GMichael]

My thought is that these intolerant extremists would find a way to blow each other up even if there was no such thing as religion. Religion just gives them a chance to say, “Look, I’m doing this for a noble cause.” They would still find a way to use pretzel logic to justify their actions.

[bobsticks]

As for your right not to, unfortunately very many do not.

It's sad really. The Qu'ran and traditional Islamic law in fact require that Jew and Christians be treated well and respected as people of the Abrahamic tradition. And there are many moderate and tolerant Muslims today. But there are also many, especially in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who are highly intolerant.

Of course, there are growing numbers of highly intolerant Christians. I'm speaking of Fundamentalists and the "Christian Right". They are becoming politically powerful and pose, IMO, a genuine threat to democracy in the US. The North American economic malaise will tend to increase their influence as simple-mind people look for supernatural solutions to complex problems.

Yes and no. I agree with much that has been written over the past few pages and, ideed, it was my goal by posting that to spark a bit of lively discussion.

I too fear the continued rise and influence of the Far Right but let's look at events within cultural context. Christian extremists certainly inflame situations through rhetoric, often compelling and disturbing but burning an inanimate object or calling for the end of a belief system is a far cry from the actuality of killing people.

[Feanor]

Yes and no. I agree with much that has been written over the past few pages and, ideed, it was my goal by posting that to spark a bit of lively discussion.

I too fear the continued rise and influence of the Far Right but let's look at events within cultural context. Christian extremists certainly inflame situations through rhetoric, often compelling and disturbing but burning an inanimate object or calling for the end of a belief system is a far cry from the actuality of killing people.
Well the Christian Right isn't killing anybody (yet), but then not all Islamic fundamentalists go so far as to kill people.

Frankly I think the Christian Right might just be a bigger threat to American than Islamists ever could be. Consider reading this book ...

Chris Hedges: American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XzRFBvsqL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[bobsticks]

Well the Christian Right isn't killing anybody (yet), but then not all Islamic fundamentalists go so far as to kill people.

Frankly I think the Christian Right might just be a bigger threat to American than Islamists ever could be...

I suppose I might be a bit more optimistic than you, my friend. I've used this phrase before but "demographics is destiny". Barely anyone in their forties and no one in their twenties or thirties that I know give a good damn about this. And, I mean that in so far as that among those age groups most recognize non-inclusive theologies for the destructive forces that they are. Hopefully as the aged and decrepit televangelists of this society die out their heirs engage in socially acceptable undertakings...like sourghum farming in Uruguay or reprocessing bong water here at home...

Of course, none of this happens if the gap between the rich and the poor continues at such a startling, unabated rate and the middle class disappears. Amazing how the abject poor flock to fundamentalist principles, isn't it? Kinda a gagng mentality...

[Feanor]

I suppose I might be a bit more optimistic than you, my friend. I've used this phrase before but "demographics is destiny". Barely anyone in their forties and no one in their twenties or thirties that I know give a good damn about this. And, I mean that in so far as that among those age groups most recognize non-inclusive theologies for the destructive forces that they are. Hopefully as the aged and decrepit televangelists of this society die out their heirs engage in socially acceptable undertakings...like sourghum farming in Uruguay or reprocessing bong water here at home....
Demographics rule, but I'm not sure the the Christian Right is only or even predominately a middle-aged thing. I think a fair number of young people are attracted especially in the "Bible Belt". On the there hand, probably the Christian Right likely isn't attracting main from the rising Latino portion of the population ... nor, of course, any from the rising, (though relatively minute), Islamic portion.

So you, 'Sticks, move in a relatively sophisticated crowd, but you aren't -- and let me hasten to reinforce the point -- a typical person.


...
Of course, none of this happens if the gap between the rich and the poor continues at such a startling, unabated rate and the middle class disappears. Amazing how the abject poor flock to fundamentalist principles, isn't it? Kinda a gagng mentality...
Abject poor not so much, rather the abjectly ignorant, stupid, and superstitious -- not all of whom are poor.

Remember what "the problem" really is ...

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio//500/StupidWorld.jpg

[GMichael]

Oh look! There's me in the purple. At least I don't show up in the problem area.

[Feanor]

Oh look! There's me in the purple. At least I don't show up in the problem area.
No, GM, not you. But then the fact is that we all contribute to the problem to a greater or lessor extent.

[ForeverAutumn]

Koran-burning US pastor briefly jailed

The US pastor whose burning of a Koran sparked deadly violence in Afghanistan has been briefly jailed in a heavily Islamic suburb after a court banned his protest outside a mosque.

A local judge jailed pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida, and his associate Wayne Sapp on Friday after a court ruled that their planned protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan, could lead to violence.

In court, Jones argued that the Koran "promotes terrorist activities around the world."

He also insisted that his right to protest against Islam was protected by the US Constitution.

"The First Amendment does us no good if it confines us to saying what is popular," he said.
But Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad testified that his department had received information about serious threats made against Jones from local residents, arguing that his protest could lead to violence if allowed.

Prosecutor Robert Moran argued that the protest had nothing to do with the First Amendment and that the community's security and peace were at stake.

In the end, the jury sided with the prosecution and Judge Mark Somers set bond at the symbolic amount of a dollar each for the two pastors, which they initially refused to pay.

Following their refusal, both were escorted to a local jail. But local media reported that they changed their minds after spending about an hour behind bars and posted the bond.

Under the judge's ruling, both Jones and Sapp are now prohibited by the court from going to the mosque for three years.

But Jones was quoted by The Detroit Free Press as saying the two "will come back next week" to try to organize a new protest.

Dearborn is home to the largest Muslim community in the United States. The 2000 census found the city's population to be 30 percent Arab-American.

Hundreds of local residents who rallied in front of Henry Ford Centennial Library late Friday denied they tried to silence free speech and called on residents to remain peaceful.

"We come here today not as Christians, not as Muslims, not as Jews, but as Americans," said Osama Sablani, publisher of the Dearborn-based Arab American News and one of the organizers of the rally. "We have only one flag, and it is the American flag."

Cea Noyes, a sociology and anthropology professor from Olivet College who took part in the rally, said Jones was trying to divide American.

"What he is doing is just appalling," she said.

Jones and Sapp made international headlines after their ceremonial "trial and execution" of the Koran by burning the Islamic holy book on March 20 at his Florida church that led to deadly protests in Afghanistan.

Seven UN staff were killed during one protest in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif on April 1. Overall, more than 20 people have been killed.

Jones believes Islam and the Koran promote intolerance and violence.

Following the killing of UN peacekeepers, the evangelical pastor said he and his supporters demanded action from the United Nations.

"Islam is not a religion of peace," he said in an earlier statement. "The time has come to hold Islam accountable."
He said that Muslim-dominated countries could no longer be allowed to spread their hatred against Christians and minorities.

"They must alter the laws that govern their countries to allow for individual freedoms and rights, such as the right to worship, free speech, and to move freely without fear of being attacked or killed," he stated.

Jones had long threatened to burn the Koran despite warnings that it would put American troops and others in Afghanistan in danger.

[JohnMichael]

Thanks for posting that FA. Could someone explain to me what is christian about travelling from Florida to Dearborn to harrass a group of people and their beliefs. Back to the days of the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc. and see how bloody christianity has been. If acts of violence are reasons to burn a book......

[Feanor]

Thanks for posting that FA. Could someone explain to me what is christian about travelling from Florida to Dearborn to harrass a group of people and their beliefs. Back to the days of the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc. and see how bloody christianity has been. If acts of violence are reasons to burn a book......
Who knows what Terry Jones really believes, or whatever he happens to believe it, why it matters? He is a person who craves attention and a personal following.

Jones has a nefarious history, notably in Cologne, Germany where he founded his own church. Congragants there kicked him out in 2008; they accused him of being controlling, exploitive, and of misuse of funds.

He is a person who richly deserves to be totally ignored. However Hezbollah and Pakistani terrorist organizations have place large bouties on his head, according to Wikipedia -- see HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Qur%27an-burning_controversy#Pastor_Terry_Jones). Of course, these groups have their own agendas and are eager to exploit whatever can be portrayed as American anti-Muslim attitude.

[bobsticks]

The judge is wrong, the cops are wrong, most of y'all are wrong and Feanor, my friend, you are engaging in an illogical argument. :dita:

[Feanor]

The judge is wrong, the cops are wrong, most of y'all are wrong and Feanor, my friend, you are engaging in an illogical argument. :dita:
Balderdash !!

:4:

[markw]

Well the Christian Right isn't killing anybody (yet), but then not all Islamic fundamentalists go so far as to kill people.

Frankly I think the Christian Right might just be a bigger threat to American than Islamists ever could be. Consider reading this book ...

Chris Hedges: American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XzRFBvsqL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpgIf you truly believe that, then canada is a more backwards and gullible country than I originally thought.

So, we forgo out constitutional rights because the LEOs are too afraid of the thugs to do their job?

Here's some reality to counter your bullshiite (http://thepersecutiontimes.com/sharia-in-the-u-s-a-christians-jailed-for-preaching-to-muslims-dearborn-mi-officials-sued/2011/02/23/)

[Feanor]

If you truly believe that, then canada is a more backwards and gullible country than I originally thought.

So, we forgo out constitutional rights because the LEOs are too afraid of the thugs to do their job?

Here's some reality to counter your bullshiite (http://thepersecutiontimes.com/sharia-in-the-u-s-a-christians-jailed-for-preaching-to-muslims-dearborn-mi-officials-sued/2011/02/23/)
Thank you for your comment, Mark.

I really don't know why you are picking on me because I'm Canadian. Is it just because your disagree with me? Or because you disagree with Chris Hedges, (author of American Fascists), who's American?

The linked article seems to imply that the arrestees were arrested because they were preaching contrary to Sharia law, and seems dismissive of the actual charge, "breaching the peace". Is it so inconceivable to you that they might have been making public nuisances of themselves?

Let me say that I am against any adoption of Sharia law in Canada (or the US); I will oppose various aspects of Sharia law, for example its treatment of women as inferiors. ... But wait: this is something that various Christian Right churches do too. Same for positions against homosexuals -- hmmm, maybe the Christian Right and Sharia advocates can come to a congenial understanding.

I do believe that Islamism -- a political as much as a religious momement -- is a dangerous force in the world, but I do not believe it ever will be a significant force internally within the USA. OTOH, The Christian Right is a power, and yes, I do believe that the Christian Right is a greater threat to American democarcy than Muslims.

You might take some comfort in that I don't consider the Christian Right to typify American Christians in general. For that matter I don't consider the Christian Right to be Christians, (not in any way the Jesus would recognize), rather they are modern-day Pharisees of the same character that Jesus contemned

[ForeverAutumn]

Mark has a serious hate-on for Canada. I don't know what we ever did to him, but I'm as happy that he's American as he is.

[markw]

It's not a hatred so much as an amused befuddlement in that you look at America as the greatest threat to the world even though you owe your safe, unfettered existence to us. Even your culture mimics us as to be indistinguishable fro ours.

And, I also find it funny (not) that you try to throw your digs at Christianity at every opportunity.

As for that book, I find it also curious that you proudly throw that book out as an example of Christians being more of a threat than Islam. ...and now it seems that you're trying to backpedal. Good for you!

Now, would either of you two legal geniuses be able to tell me exactly what "breaching the peace" is, and how it differs from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right of assembly and free speech.

Go ahead. Do a little research before coming to the defense of the police. ,,,and then get back to me.

But, I guess this this the only real outlet y'all have to rag on the US. After all virtually everyone else in the "great north" knows what side their bread is buttered on. I guess it makes y'all feel canada is important, eh?

[ForeverAutumn]

You have a very strange view of Canadians.

Thank you for not invading us.

[Mr Peabody]

It's one thing to say you don't believe, and disagree with Christianity but then it's another for that same person to try to tell the world what a Christian is. Feanor it would be a full time job to correct your inaccuracies regarding the Bible. I say Bible opposed to using "christianity" due to the word becoming so misused and represented by many of the groups you hold up as examples. Both them and you are misguided to say the least.

[Mr Peabody]

You have a very strange view of Canadians.

Thank you for not invading us.

Got oil? We may re-evaluate that decision :)

[ForeverAutumn]

Got oil? We may re-evaluate that decision :)

Our best kept secret... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands) Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, okay?

[Feanor]

It's not a hatred so much as an amused befuddlement in that you look at America as the greatest threat to the world even though you owe your safe, unfettered existence to us. Even your culture mimics us as to be indistinguishable fro ours.

And, I also find it funny (not) that you try to throw your digs at Christianity at every opportunity.
...

But, I guess this this the only real outlet y'all have to rag on the US. After all virtually everyone else in the "great north" knows what side their bread is buttered on. I guess it makes y'all feel canada is important, eh?
You are a person of little understanding, Mark.

I admire the American nation and wish the best for its people (as I've said quite often). Accordingly I the time to understand the treats & vulnerabilities that the US faces in the hope they will be addressed. It's perplexing to me that you make the spurious and pathetic accusation that I'm anti-American.

I believe that institutional religion is a major exacerbant of the problems of the world today and the direct cause of some of them, (as it has ever been). That is true for Christianity, Islam, and other religions quite equally. The Christian Right, (as opposed to Christians in general), happens to be one instance of that poses an particular threat to America.

[Feanor]

Our best kept secret... Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, okay? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands)
Yeah, we got plenty of oil. Hey, the Alberta oil sands contain more oil than Saudi Arabia. So bring on the invasion. I'm sure the occupation will "win our hearts and minds".

Wait ... no need: Harper is already a sycophant of the US.

[Feanor]

It's one thing to say you don't believe, and disagree with Christianity but then it's another for that same person to try to tell the world what a Christian is. Feanor it would be a full time job to correct your inaccuracies regarding the Bible. I say Bible opposed to using "christianity" due to the word becoming so misused and represented by many of the groups you hold up as examples. Both them and you are misguided to say the least.
Do you have a particular "inaccuracy" of mine that you care to point out?

[Mr Peabody]

I am not going through the entire thread to debate you point by point, I don't have the time. In addition, by not having any faith you are not on the same playing field.

As a recent example, no where does the Bible teach women are second class citizens. With that being said, the Bible does state, if I may paraphrase, "Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of his household". Men are to love, respect and honor their wives but God put into place an order of authority. One has to take the Bible in it's entirety or not at all. People like to believe God is love and He is but they refuse to accept that He also warns of a not so pleasant eternity for the disobedient.

[bobsticks]

One has to take the Bible in it's entirety or not at all...

No one doesn't and I would point out that the most fervent of the Far Right idealogues in this country never do. I could write something pithy to illustrate the point or one could just take a stroll down Leviticus Lane turn left at Numbers Boulevard and hit that nice little cafe at the end of Rue de Paul's Epistles for a steaming hot cup of hypocrisy.

All that said, it's still unconscionably wrong to censor the dingbat.

[Feanor]

I am not going through the entire thread to debate you point by point, I don't have the time. In addition, by not having any faith you are not on the same playing field.

As a recent example, no where does the Bible teach women are second class citizens. With that being said, the Bible does state, if I may paraphrase, "Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of his household". Men are to love, respect and honor their wives but God put into place an order of authority. One has to take the Bible in it's entirety or not at all. People like to believe God is love and He is but they refuse to accept that He also warns of a not so pleasant eternity for the disobedient.
Your paraphrase illustrates my point. One may argue for a benign interpretation, but the same words have been used a various times in history, including the present day by some, to vigorously subordinate women.

"Taking the Bible as a whole" is a matter of smoothing over the Book's many contradictions -- when people have done that they are come to a wide range of conclusions on almost every issue. For my part, I contrast the jealous, vengeful, and genocidal god of the Old Testament with the (relaitvely) compassionate god of the New Testament. (Some heretical theologians have actually declared that they are different gods.) Personally I consider the Old and New Testaments not reconcilable. Muslims, of course, consider both of those complilations to be full of errors and distortions.

[markw]

You have a very strange view of Canadians.

Thank you for not invading us.Actually, I like most canadians I've met. My only issue seems to be with a few here that exhibit that little man/big ego "moral superiority" attitude in massive doses about which I read.

[Feanor]

Actually, I like most canadians I've met. My only issue seems to be with a few here that exhibit that little man/big ego "moral superiority" attitude in massive doses about which I read.
I think you're confused about who has the "superiority" attitude.

[Hyfi]

I am not going through the entire thread to debate you point by point, I don't have the time. In addition, by not having any faith you are not on the same playing field.

As a recent example, no where does the Bible teach women are second class citizens. With that being said, the Bible does state, if I may paraphrase, "Christ is the head of the church, man is the head of his household". Men are to love, respect and honor their wives but God put into place an order of authority. One has to take the Bible in it's entirety or not at all. People like to believe God is love and He is but they refuse to accept that He also warns of a not so pleasant eternity for the disobedient.

I don't want to start a huge religious debate here and I would not consider myself to be an Atheist, but the book is just a book. It has already been proven that it was manipulated into its current form by rearranging, editing, and burning anything that may sway the story attempting to be told.

Most of the book is written in code because each different sect tried to hide what it was doing. Scrolls found at the Dead Sea location contain books of the bible written well before the book was put together, but had been changed later when the book was assembled.

All 4 gospels totally contradict each other but are supposed to be true and when marked in red, the actual words of Jesus. The 4 books were written so long after the fact that nobody would have remembered conversations word for word to be able to quote them.

The book as a whole is all written in correspondences and were never intended to be taken in the literal sense, until Organized Religion, Christianity, decided that they could control the masses with fear. You can go to 10 churches on Sunday and get a totally different view of the same passage due to mis-interpretations.

One cannot preach about the All Loving, All Forgiving God and then turn around and tell you to be fearful. It is not logical. It is one or the other or a farce. We are all the same, made up of the same stuff and in the scheme of all things bigger, we are all one.

Many here are probably not too familiar with Emanual Swedenborg, or the New Church. (Pretty sure Mr. P and I have exchanged some thoughts on his book Heaven and Hell which is a good suggested read in one of the newer translated forms) The link below is to some of Swedenborgs writings which is his enlightened interpretation of the opening books of the bible. He goes basically phrase by phrase and explains the intent of the passage, the correspondences and meaning, and then points out all the related passages in the rest of the book so when you read them, you can refer back and understand what it was intended to mean. I reccomend these readings for anyone who thinks they know the book or want to understand it better.

http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/bible/comment/swedenborg/swedenb1.htm

If any here ever saw the Robin Williams movie "What Dreams May Come", the whole premise of Hell was taken straight out of Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell. If you read thru the link above, it is a lot to go thru and it took me a good bit of time, you will recognize elements of the movie such as the scene when they were in the boat going thru what is called 'Faces of the Water" Also if you read Heaven and Hell, you would recognize why the movie had Levels of Hell as well as noticing that Like Minded people go with the same when in heaven or hell which is actually the lowest (farthest place from God).

[markw]

I think you're confused about who has the "superiority" attitude.I think you've not been paying attention.

[ForeverAutumn]

If you truly believe that, then canada is a more backwards and gullible country than I originally thought.


Actually, I like most canadians I've met. My only issue seems to be with a few here that exhibit that little man/big ego "moral superiority" attitude in massive doses about which I read.

Your words, here and in the past, tell a different story. But assuming that what you say is true...your problem is with only one or two people...then let me just say that when you put down a whole country based on the opinion of one or two people it makes you look bigoted and ignorant. I'm not saying that you are either of these things. I'm just saying how you appear in case you'd like to work on some self-improvement.

[GMichael]

(Mike opens the door slowly and slips onto the couch unnoticed)
Hey LJ, got anymore popcorn?

[markw]

Your words, here and in the past, tell a different story. But assuming that what you say is true...your problem is with only one or two people...then let me just say that when you put down a whole country based on the opinion of one or two people it makes you look bigoted and ignorant. I'm not saying that you are either of these things. I'm just saying how you appear in case you'd like to work on some self-improvement.Are you saying that wnat I see here is atypical of the average canadian? For a suposedly small minority, you make a very vocal showing on this forum. How can I deny that when forming an opinion? Perhaps you should do more to show your country in a better light. After all you don't see Americans posting out of the clear blue on what they percieve to be problems with canada, do you?

[JohnMichael]

It's one thing to say you don't believe, and disagree with Christianity but then it's another for that same person to try to tell the world what a Christian is. Feanor it would be a full time job to correct your inaccuracies regarding the Bible. I say Bible opposed to using "christianity" due to the word becoming so misused and represented by many of the groups you hold up as examples. Both them and you are misguided to say the least.


I am amazed by those who profess to be Christians who do not emulate Jesus. My definition is someone who is loving, forgiving and a person of peace. The bible was written by many people over many hundreds of years. Of course the translation errors from languages to languages. Then different faiths selected the books they wanted. I could not be a bible literalist with all the errors. Then of course on top of that we have ministers who preach to support their biases using chosen parts of the bible.

[ForeverAutumn]

Are you saying that wnat I see here is atypical of the average canadian? For a suposedly small minority, you make a very vocal showing on this forum. How can I deny that when forming an opinion? Perhaps you should do more to show your country in a better light. After all you don't see Americans posting out of the clear blue on what they percieve to be problems with canada, do you?

I could say the same about you as an American. But I don't judge all Americans based on the opinions of just one or two.

I actually came back here to delete my comment. Not because I don't believe in what I was saying, but because I didn't like the way that I was behaving and portraying myself. I don't see the point in continuing this conversation, so I'm not going to.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

(Mike opens the door slowly and slips onto the couch unnoticed)
Hey LJ, got anymore popcorn?

Move over Mikey, and pass the popcorn and coke. Oh...fasten those seatbelts!

[Feanor]

Your words, here and in the past, tell a different story. But assuming that what you say is true...your problem is with only one or two people...then let me just say that when you put down a whole country based on the opinion of one or two people it makes you look bigoted and ignorant. I'm not saying that you are either of these things. I'm just saying how you appear in case you'd like to work on some self-improvement.
There's a contradiction implicit here. On the one hand Markw wants the USA to be recognized as a world leader. But craving that recognition, he overlooks that with the recognition inevidably comes scrutiny.

How come Americans don't seem to criticize Canadians as much as vice versa? See above; also, most Americans never give Canada a second thought.

[markw]

There's a contradiction implicit here. On the one hand Markw wants the USA to be recognized as a world leader. But craving that recognition, he overlooks that with the recognition inevidably comes scrutiny.

How come Americans don't seem to criticize Canadians as much as vice versa? See above; also, most Americans never give Canada a second thought.Why should we give it a second thought? Nothing really going on up there, is there? Otherwise why should our comings and goings bother you so? Haven't you got your own life, destiny, and identity?

Scrutiny is one thing and we're big enough to handle that. But, it seems that (some of) our neighbors from the north seem to get their jollies by trying to denigrate us at every point. This is even more strange in that they seem to have totally been enveloped by our culture and seem to have no problems living that life. Now, why don't you see what you can do to augment to it instead of totally trying to become us? I mean, let's be real. Aside from Quebec, canada might as well be the US.

Why don't we bother criticizing canada? I guess being the main go-to guy of the free world we have bigger issues to worry about than trying to drag down our neighbors. But, if schadenfreude is a major portion of your culture, then have at it, eh?.

[GMichael]

Move over Mikey, and pass the popcorn and coke. Oh...fasten those seatbelts!
Sorry, no Coke. Got some beer though, and coffee is almost ready. Would ya like a brew of one kind or another?

[Hyfi]

Why should we give it a second thought? Nothing really going on up there, is there? Otherwise why should our comings and goings bother you so? Haven't you got your own life, destiny, and identity?



Really it is all just North America with an invisible line called a border where they can hassle people. If the US was not here, Canada wouldn't exist either since they could never defend themselves without us.

[GMichael]

Rough crowd.

[Feanor]

Rough crowd.
I'm bailing, GM. I can hancle the roughness but I haven't patience for the "Shut up and be grateful" line of argument from American chauvinists.

[GMichael]

I'm bailing, GM. I can hancle the roughness but I haven't patience for the "Shut up and be grateful" line of argument from American chauvinists.


But....
But.....
But I'm a nice American chauvinists.:cryin:

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, God is the same today as He was in the beginning. He first communicated with patriarchs of the families, then the Jews received the Law, commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments but the law was much more vast and then the New Testament or Covenant with God in which He communicates through His word. The NT has warning of the same vengeance, it just hasn't come to pass yet. So there's still time for you.

Hyfi, the Bible does not contradict itself. It's just those who are enemies of it and ignorant of it's content who twist words to slander it. The "Four Gospels" are in harmony. They were written by four different men to four different audiences. So one text may emphasize a point more or elaborate more on an issue. The men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit which fell upon them on the day of Pentecost. Jesus told the apostles He would send them a "helper" referring to the Holy Spirit. One of the gifts was ready recall of the things Christ taught them.

It's true that you can go to 10 different churches and receive 10 different interpretations. In fact, if you look hard enough you'd find just the right church that allows you to do whatever fits you. That is not God's fault nor the Bible. It's the fault of those who don't accept God's authority and His word in it's entirety. As one visits these various churches, it's their responsibility to look into the Bible to see if they follow the pattern written within, if not, then you are in the wrong place. The NT states the road to salvation is narrow and the road to destruction is wide. If the NT was all about only one thing as Feanor stated then it would be only one road for every one and we could do what we want.

[Feanor]

...

Hyfi, the Bible does not contradict itself. It's just those who are enemies of it and ignorant of it's content who twist words to slander it. The "Four Gospels" are in harmony. They were written by four different men to four different audiences. So one text may emphasize a point more or elaborate more on an issue. The men who wrote the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit which fell upon them on the day of Pentecost. Jesus told the apostles He would send them a "helper" referring to the Holy Spirit. One of the gifts was ready recall of the things Christ taught them.

....
A good book I read recently on the subject of the gospels and also the early history (1-600 CE) is the following. The author discusses at length the relative content, consistency, and historical context of the gospels, Letters of Paul, and Acts of the Apostles ...

Charles Freeman: A New History of Early Christianity

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61o42ZlhWhL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg ... see Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/New-History-Early-Christianity/dp/0300170831/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303990235&sr=1-1)

Note that reviews of this book are across the spectrum -- I tend to feel is is a very informative read, and other people are quite indignant.

[Hyfi]

A good book I read recently on the subject of the gospels and also the early history (1-600 CE) is the following. The author discusses at length the relative content, consistency, and historical context of the gospels, Letters of Paul, and Acts of the Apostles ...

Charles Freeman: A New History of Early Christianity

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61o42ZlhWhL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg ... see Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/New-History-Early-Christianity/dp/0300170831/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1303990235&sr=1-1)

Note that reviews of this book are across the spectrum -- I tend to feel is is a very informative read, and other people are quite indignant.

All one has to do is Google "Contradictions in the Bible" or "Contradictions of the four Gospels" to learn all one needs. I got 190,000 hits on the latter.

Nuf said.

Edit:

Mr P-

Mat 28 - 28:8 So 10 they left the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Mark 16 - 16:8 Then 7 they went out and ran from the tomb, for terror and bewilderment had seized them. 8 And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

So which one is it and how come the divine blessing of recalling everything exactly as it happened and was said didn't help out too well here?

That is just one easy one to see. Thousands more available on demand.

[JohnMichael]

Question everything and do not drink from the communal kool-aid vat.

[GMichael]

Question everything and do not drink from the communal kool-aid vat.
That's not Kool-aid my friend. But you sure are right about not drinking it.:eek6:

[ForeverAutumn]

Feanor, God is the same today as He was in the beginning. He first communicated with patriarchs of the families, then the Jews received the Law, commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments but the law was much more vast and then the New Testament or Covenant with God in which He communicates through His word. The NT has warning of the same vengeance, it just hasn't come to pass yet. So there's still time for you.

LOL! That was funny! :D

[JohnMichael]

LOL! That was funny! :D


Almost as funny as his judging me a Sad Excuse of Humanity.

[ForeverAutumn]

Almost as funny as his judging me a Sad Excuse of Humanity.

I think I missed something. I know that's not true. John, everything that I know of you shows me that you exemplify humanity.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Isn't it amazing that some can quote scripture, but rarely live by it. I love the do as I say, but not as I do angle....runs kind of rampant in religious circles.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Almost as funny as his judging me a Sad Excuse of Humanity.

You will be surprised at how differently God judges you than how man does. The Bible does say "“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

God thinks very differently about you JM, he looks at your heart, while man is judging your exterior". Don't blame God for the stupidity of man, and the twisting of his words by man.

[JohnMichael]

An odd thing happened while I was still working at the hospital. A new employee approached me and asked if I believed in God and at the time I said yes. She said she wanted to talk to me and I thought I was once again going to hear about my future if I did not change my ways. She began to tell me that in her dreams she was walking the halls of the hospital along with Jesus. He wanted to tell her that "I had a lot of pain in my life but I still had a precious heart". After that day she never returned to work.

SirT you are correct. I would rather receive my messages from Jesus than my fellow human.

[Smokey]

Don't blame God for the stupidity of man, and the twisting of his words by man.

That is very much true. When you hear preacher[s] saying that only way to heaven is thru Jesus Christ-although knowing well that half of world population don't believe in Christ, you know there is something wrong.

[Mr Peabody]

Hyfi, you peaked my curiosity but Matt 28 does not have a verse 28 and Mark 16:16 does not match what you wrote, 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons;

JohnMichael, I must have done well because you seem quite proud of your title. And, the comment was made based on actions you commited against me so don't lead folks here to believe it was based on anything else.

[Mr Peabody]

Smokey, not you too? When the Bible says your entry into heaven is through Christ what do you expect the preacher to say? He isn't going to change the message because some one is a Muslim, no more than they'd change their message because I'm a Christian. The Bible says, "through Christ" because He died for you, me, and all mankind. You either believe it or not.

[Smokey]

Smokey, not you too? When the Bible says your entry into heaven is through Christ what do you expect the preacher to say? He isn't going to change the message because some one is a Muslim, no more than they'd change their message because I'm a Christian.

That is exactly my point. God dosen't care if you are Christian, Muslim, Jew or Buddhist to get to heaven if you done good, so why such an exclusion from either religion. That is the part that puzzle me.

[JohnMichael]

JohnMichael, I must have done well because you seem quite proud of your title. And, the comment was made based on actions you commited against me so don't lead folks here to believe it was based on anything else.



What actions against you? I have never met you or been in close proximity to perform an action against you. I may have disagreed in print with you. Get down off the cross someone else could use the wood.

[bobsticks]

I wonder what he word for "gun" is in, say, Mandarin Chinese or Farsi?

I'd imagine that the word for "Jesus" might be different too.