Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Fanatics are fanatics, and will bomb and kill for their beliefs regardless of what their religion is.

The "christian fanatics" you were talking about weren't really fanatics, as they don't exercise fanaticism by becoming excessive (by means of violence, as commonly defined). Dictionaries are fun. You should give one a try, sometime.

As for why Arabs tend to act more violently than Westerners, could it be because of the area they live in and their history, rather than their religion or race? Hmmmm...

At 9/22/06 08:13 PM, Politics wrote: As for why Arabs tend to act more violently than Westerners, could it be because of the area they live in and their history, rather than their religion or race? Hmmmm...

Oh of course. That's totally the reason. The united States doesn't have a long history of racism, genocide, or oppresion of women in it's history at all. In fact, whenever we read back on our history, it was perfectly ok to think of blacks as coons, women as house-slaves, and indians as sub-human.

The reason these things changed was because we know they were atrocities against mankind. No one deserves that garbage. And no one ought to defend it. Ever.

At 9/22/06 08:12 PM, TheMason wrote: Like a previous poster wrote Muhhammed does not demand conversion. He claims that Islam is destined to become the universal religion...but how is this different from the aims of Christians? Look at all the missionaries sent to spread the word. Furthermore, true Islam is more tolerant of other religions and have a better track record than either Jew or Muslim.

Mason, step outside and take a look at the world around you. Muhhammed isn't depriving us of our rights. Fanaticism is growing out of control in the Middle-East. You want Americans to fear missionaries? Do missionaries today kidnap children for not believing what they believe? Do they strap bombs to their kids? You're blind to reality, Mason. True Islam does not reign in the middle east. True Islam doesn't advocate suicide attacks. Recognize the brewing danger. It sure as hell recognizes you.

Also there are Christians who have the same values regarding gays and women as you prescribe to muslims. The same for masturbation and abortion. This is not middle age Christianity but modern, revivalist, evangelical and uniquely American Protestantism. There are also Christian terrorists out there (Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord from the 1970s and 80s as well as David Koresh, and many Patriot/Militia views on Christianity).

Mason, the "Covenant" doesn't rule any political movement. When the president of Iran says it's time for Islam to rule the world, he's talking about your WORST nightmares of Christianity coming true; only it's under islam. Fanatical Christianity is under the thumb of American democracy. Radical islam is not. Radical Christianity in today's world does not demand death to all non-christians. Radical islam demands death or conversion to all non-muslims.

The main difference is the economic affluence of the US. If we had five generations of people living refugee camps or an oppressive and morally excessive monarchy keeping even the middle class down you bet radical, violent Christianity would find resonance in the USA.

Now you're lying. That claim is not only false, it contradicts history. British subjects were once oppressed. They had no rights to property, representation, and no rights to life. Aside from the very few rich in the colonies, people were dirt-shit poor. Thomas Jefferson used his belief in God in conjuction with other philosphers to undercut the belief that Nobles and Kings had the right to rule unopposed over mankind.

The influence of the delaration of independance was INSIGNIFICANT to the United States when compared to what that document rippled throughout the world. Your argument that economics, generations of poor people, and negative influences of Christianty completely contradict history.

The fundamentalists are just as scary as fundamentalist Muslims. The seeds are present for violent, terroristic Christianity in this country. Thank Jehova/Allah/Yaweh (all the same diety by the way...) that conditions are not ripe.

That's just the point. Religion unites people, politics turns them against eachother. The seeds are NOT ripe for that in the United States. In the middle east you have an infestatino of radical religious ideology more than happy to rip you of every bit of life and freedom you have. Modern radlical christianity does not in any way shape or form even compare to the danger of radlcal islam as it is today.

Modern liberals are failing their destiny to save mankind from oppresion. They fail because they feel they are unworthy to take action against oppresion. And it's sad to see such a promising and enligtening ideology fall to wimpering, cowardly inability.

At 9/22/06 08:22 PM, Nylo wrote: In fact, whenever we read back on our history, it was perfectly ok to think of blacks as coons, women as house-slaves, and indians as sub-human.

How does that even function as a reduction to absurdity? It has nothing to do with what I said...

The reason these things changed was because we know they were atrocities against mankind. No one deserves that garbage. And no one ought to defend it. Ever.

The reason things changed was because of industrialisation, heavily influenced by the utilization of slave labor, and because of that the nation became richer and began allowing rights and privileges to its people.

The reason things in the middle east didn't change was because of their immensely bloodier history, lack of education, and attempted imperialization by various countries stifling their attempts at creating a stronger country which could and would support racial and gender equality.

But wait, could I be insinuating that race and religion don't magically alter nations to become superior to one and other, but rather logical contributors like history and education does?! I must be insane.

So tell me, why aren't American Muslims running around burning down churches when the Pope says something that offends them?

At 9/22/06 12:19 AM, Nylo wrote: Let's play a game, who's more dangerous!

Christian Right::

- Condoms should be illegal

That is only with Catholics.

At 9/22/06 09:25 PM, Politics wrote:

At 9/22/06 08:22 PM, Nylo wrote: In fact, whenever we read back on our history, it was perfectly ok to think of blacks as coons, women as house-slaves, and indians as sub-human.

How does that even function as a reduction to absurdity? It has nothing to do with what I said...

You must forget what you say pretty quickly. You stated, and I quote "As for why Arabs tend to act more violently than Westerners, could it be because of the area they live in and their history". No. American history has also faced challenges of subjucation and oppresion. Why is it excusable today for the arabs to carry out such attrocities in the name of poor fortune when we ourselves look back on history and recognize that such things are evil? Does history excuse Nazi Germans for mass genocide on the basis of poor fortune upbringing, as well? Of course not. There's a staggering difference between understanding why a people commit genocide, and excusing them for doing so on the basis that history repeats itself.

The reason things changed was because of industrialisation, heavily influenced by the utilization of slave labor, and because of that the nation became richer and began allowing rights and privileges to its people.

How you came to the conclusion that the United States became industrialized before it had rights to do so is beyond me. A government has to be formed by the rule of the consent, money must be coined, banks must be established, capital must be earned. An entire society has to say "holy shit, this is going to take a lot of work" before any of that can occur; that's how a civilization is crafted. Notwithstanding that the Persians and arabs in general are historically notorious for using slave labor. The practice itself is ancient among countless other countries throughout history. It took the United States as a nation, from birth, 88 years to abolish slavery.

I'm not questioning the sincerity of your arguments, but the history you use to back them up fails to support them on all accounts.

So tell me, why aren't American Muslims running around burning down churches when the Pope says something that offends them?

First of all, I'm not anti-muslim or anti-religion. I believe religion brings people together for the better, and modern Muslims who practice in peace are not what is driving Islamic Jihadism.

John Locke's "Natural Law" theory reigns surpreme here in the United States. It does not in arab nations. Muslims living in the United States are peaceful, true muslims. They recognize inalienable rights, they live true to their religion's peaceful ideology. There is nothing to keep religious extremism from running amok in Palestine, in Syria, in Iraq. Unless you count gassing kurds and torture chambers a legitimate way to control a populace.

You're under the impression that the shortcomings of mankind will dictate how we live. History shows us that a culture that unites through consent to eachother's well-being and adhere to the idea that all people are created equal, in spite of those shortcomings, has the greatest chance of moving the world forward. Radical Islam today aims to destroy all that we have worked for. Radical Christianity is held in check.

At 9/22/06 01:12 AM, NorseBeast wrote: Well, yeah. But I thought we were talking contemporary here. Every institution has skeletons in the closet if you're going to start dredging from 500+ years ago. Christianity has changed too much since then to make it a relevant comparison to modern radical Islam.

You're right, so for a more modern example, how about the IRA?

At 9/22/06 12:19 AM, Nylo wrote: - Women are sacred, no pre-marital sex

what the hell, where in the Bible and Christian doctrine do you get women are sacred? (don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to degrade women i'm just trying to explain Bible related thought) and how does women being sacred make pre-marital sex wrong? if anything the Bible protrays women as the weaker sex and during a Christian council women were declared human by one vote. (i'll track that one down later)

At 9/22/06 08:51 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 9/22/06 08:12 PM, TheMason wrote:

Mason, step outside and take a look at the world around you. Muhhammed isn't depriving us of our rights. Fanaticism is growing out of control in the Middle-East. You want Americans to fear missionaries? Do missionaries today kidnap children for not believing what they believe? Do they strap bombs to their kids? You're blind to reality, Mason. True Islam does not reign in the middle east. True Islam doesn't advocate suicide attacks. Recognize the brewing danger. It sure as hell recognizes you.

As a veteran of the Global War on Terrorism, I'm very much aware of the danger of Islamist thought. But the argument isn't about the very existance of the danger of Islamism (political, fundamentalist Islam)...but it is over whether or not it is worse than fundamentalist Christiantiy. I think they are the same.

:: Mason, the "Covenant" doesn't rule any political movement. When the president of Iran says it's time for Islam to rule the world, he's talking about your WORST nightmares of Christianity coming true; only it's under islam. Fanatical Christianity is under the thumb of American democracy. Radical islam is not. Radical Christianity in today's world does not demand death to all non-christians. Radical islam demands death or conversion to all non-muslims.

Several things, the "Covenant" I refer to is the CSA, a group of Christian survivalists in the 1970s and 80s who lived in Missouri. They sought the violent overthrow of secular American government. Do not confuse a desire to see Israel go away as a desire for Judiasm or Christianity to go away. bin-Laden, the Taliban and Iranian Mullahs allow for the continuance of Jewish or Christian religion within their lands.

Now you're lying. That claim is not only false, it contradicts history. British subjects were once oppressed. They had no rights to property, representation, and no rights to life. Aside from the very few rich in the colonies, people were dirt-shit poor. Thomas Jefferson used his belief in God in conjuction with other philosphers to undercut the belief that Nobles and Kings had the right to rule unopposed over mankind.

In the UK the Church was subservient to the King. Thus when the peasantry turned to the Church the church focused their discontent towards a hope for the afterlife or toward's the Monarchy's enemies (France maybe?)

In today's ME the relationship is reversed where the Church is the ruling party (Iran) or at least equal or a basis of legitimacy (Saudi Arabia). Thus they are focusing the angst of the poor and downtrodden towards outside enemies (the US and Israel). I suggest that you read about HAMAS recruitment techniques among young Palestinians.

Just FYI: Jefferson spent hours in the White House with a razor cutting verses out of the Bible. He rearranged them in order to make more sense, and got rid of ones he thought irrational.

The influence of the delaration of independance was INSIGNIFICANT to the United States when compared to what that document rippled throughout the world. Your argument that economics, generations of poor people, and negative influences of Christianty completely contradict history.

Take a History and a contemporary poly sci class. Once you get to the graduate level then you will be on the same playing field as this "liar".

The fundamentalists are just as scary as fundamentalist Muslims. The seeds are present for violent, terroristic Christianity in this country. Thank Jehova/Allah/Yaweh (all the same diety by the way...) that conditions are not ripe.

That's just the point. Religion unites people, politics turns them against eachother. The seeds are NOT ripe for that in the United States. In the middle east you have an infestatino of radical religious ideology more than happy to rip you of every bit of life and freedom you have. Modern radlical christianity does not in any way shape or form even compare to the danger of radlcal islam as it is today.

I said that the seeds exist, but the CONDITIONS are not ripe. At least currently. Have you ever heard of the Christian Exodus? They seek to establish a modern, Christian theocracy in the US. They are starting with S. Carolina. The writing is on the wall.

http://christianexodus.org/

Modern liberals are failing their destiny to save mankind from oppresion. They fail because they feel they are unworthy to take action against oppresion. And it's sad to see such a promising and enligtening ideology fall to wimpering, cowardly inability.

Just FYI I'm not what you would call a liberal. Americans need to realize that not only does the threat of religious oppression exist in the ME and Islam, but the same seeds are in this country and Christianity. That should scare the hell out of every Conservative, Liberal and Libertarian.

AAK

If you think about it there have been many wars in the history of man that were entirely over religious disputes. Does religion really solve more problems then it creates? I say no, just my opinion though.

At 9/22/06 10:30 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 9/22/06 09:25 PM, Politics wrote:

At 9/22/06 08:22 PM, Nylo wrote: In fact, whenever we read back on our history, it was perfectly ok to think of blacks as coons, women as house-slaves, and indians as sub-human.

How does that even function as a reduction to absurdity? It has nothing to do with what I said...

You must forget what you say pretty quickly.

Actually, I was referring specifically to that line. I didn't see how it applied to anything I said. Now I see that you're responding in apparent misunderstanding, with the idea that I'm defending their actions.

To explain: I was affirming that they have good (or maybe strong, is a better word?) reason to do what fanatics and terrorists do, even though I am in no way advocating it, and that they are not simply some inferior savages spurred to violence by their religion, but rather products of their shitty region.

How you came to the conclusion that the United States became industrialized before it had rights to do so is beyond me.

I was referring to the application of civil rights following the industrial revolution, made possible by increased wealth in the nation, which eventually lead to the decline of various previously mentioned atrocities. I'm purporting the idea that a lack of major industrialisation is a primary reason for current middle eastern conditions. I'm not digressing into an argument about slavery, nor will I.

I'm not questioning the sincerity of your arguments, but the history you use to back them up fails to support them on all accounts.

What history? So far, our little argument has been nothing but digression from my first statement: Arabs are products of their surroundings, not religion or race. The only history I've used is stating that Middle Eastern conditions have been worse overall than North American conditions, that the Industrial Revolution happened before major civil rights hurdles like ending slave labor and women's rights, and that it is also a primary contributing factor.

So tell me, why aren't American Muslims running around burning down churches when the Pope says something that offends them?

First of all, I'm not anti-muslim or anti-religion. I believe religion brings people together for the better, and modern Muslims who practice in peace are not what is driving Islamic Jihadism.

So what is the dispute of this thread? I was under the impression you were trying to insinuate that Muslim extremists are more violent than christian extremists, which I responded to by contending that products of that region are the violent party at hand, and not necessarily adhering to Islam. Therefore, Christian fanatics are as dangerous any other, and Islamic (or any religious) roots are superfluous.

Don't tell me we're only arguing because we're on a different page...

My opinion? Right now, I consider the Christian Right more dangerous than Islamic Extremists. Sure the Islamic Extremists possesses bombs for suicide attacks, but the Christian Right possesses the US Armed Forces.

At 9/23/06 07:25 PM, Ovalshine wrote: My opinion? Right now, I consider the Christian Right more dangerous than Islamic Extremists. Sure the Islamic Extremists possesses bombs for suicide attacks, but the Christian Right possesses the US Armed Forces.

Not really. I know many people on my ship that are not part of an Abrahamic faith let alone Christian. So there is just as much of a mix of religion on the armed forces as there are through out the US.

At 9/23/06 08:01 PM, FeeFee85 wrote: Not really. I know many people on my ship that are not part of an Abrahamic faith let alone Christian. So there is just as much of a mix of religion on the armed forces as there are through out the US.

I said "possesses the armed forces", not "are in the armed forces".

At 9/23/06 08:29 PM, Ovalshine wrote:

At 9/23/06 08:01 PM, FeeFee85 wrote: Not really. I know many people on my ship that are not part of an Abrahamic faith let alone Christian. So there is just as much of a mix of religion on the armed forces as there are through out the US.

I said "possesses the armed forces", not "are in the armed forces".

If there are laws preventing the use of the militery for religious wars and what not than what danger is it? Please just because the majority of the people that run the gov are christian does not make them extremists. I am not christian myself and I am in the militery. Trust me there is nothing religious behind any thing we do. Its just not allowed and no matter how foolish or overbearing you may think our gov is believe me its not that foolish.

At 9/23/06 12:30 AM, TheMason wrote: As a veteran of the Global War on Terrorism, I'm very much aware of the danger of Islamist thought. But the argument isn't about the very existance of the danger of Islamism (political, fundamentalist Islam)...but it is over whether or not it is worse than fundamentalist Christiantiy. I think they are the same.

Oh absolutely. I think you misunderstood what I meant. Both forms of radlcalism are without a doubt equally terrifying and destructive. But in today's age, modern times, right now Islamic Jihadists are the looming danger. We've come together as a nation against radical Christianity in the form of the Ku Klux Klan, against a perversion that the Bible supports slavery (it doesn't), and a radical christian belief that cultures that are not Christian are savage, sub-humans that deserve colonization.

We've put radical christianity in check. It's time ot put radical Islam in check. It is the age of arab islamic extremists that have subverted the Quran our generation must deal with.

LOL RADICAL CHRISTIANITY sooooooooooo... dangerous. they are the same as muslim extremists.

I'm pretty sure that radical christians bombed the twin towers.
Radical christians all over the world hijack planes and bomb civilian areas in the name of god.
infact, just last week the pope ordered holy war on homosexuals that took their land.

Radical christianity just doesn't exist, and if it does it is DEFINATLY not as dangerous and not even close to being as dangerous as radical Islamists. whoever believes that it does is a complete dumbass or just a muslim.

almost forgot to tell you that in Ireland radical christians made a protest against abortion as they were shooting ak47 s into the sky and burning American and Israeli flags.

At 9/23/06 12:30 AM, TheMason wrote:

Several things, the "Covenant" I refer to is the CSA, a group of Christian survivalists in the 1970s and 80s who lived in Missouri.

Exactly, there are all types of cells in the united states that perform acts of terror. Weather underground and even PETA if you want to take it that far. What I'm getting at is they don't compare at all in terms of imminent threat in today's world. Right now. Right now it's the holy grail for islamic terroists to get nukes into the United States. I'm not advocating anything crazy here, Mason. I hate the patriot Act and I don't agree at all with surrending civil liberties for protection. I'm saying these are the global enemies of the current generation. Beheadings, child martyrs, clit-removal of women; it's inexcuable. And it's influence and free reign has gone unchecked long enough.

In the UK the Church was subservient to the King. Thus when the peasantry turned to the Church the church focused their discontent towards a hope for the afterlife or toward's the Monarchy's enemies (France maybe?)

Just FYI: Jefferson spent hours in the White House with a razor cutting verses out of the Bible. He rearranged them in order to make more sense, and got rid of ones he thought irrational.

Jefferson was his own mix of deist and theist. He did not believe in the Trinity, regarding it as trans-existantial nonsense. I'm catholic, clearly believing in a certain element of the Trinity. I'm not so shallow and narrow-minded to negate Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence just because he didn't believe exactly how I believe. That holds true to any other religion; I may not agree with all of it, but I understand there is much to learn from other points of view. It's our God-given right to think freely.

Take a History and a contemporary poly sci class. Once you get to the graduate level then you will be on the same playing field as this "liar".

When did I ever call Jefferson a liar? I'm saying the draft of the Declaration of independance has sparked a wave of free-thinking in the world, not just the United States. It didn't effect just us The idea that Nobles and Kings do not have the God-given right to rule unopposed over their people; that is universal. Is it mere conicidence that thousands and thousands of years of kingship crubled under the guise of free-thinking, government by the people, and the prospect of inalienable rights? I'm severely confused as to why you think these are only American values. We may have written them, but that document serves the world as much as it does us.

I said that the seeds exist, but the CONDITIONS are not ripe. At least currently. Have you ever heard of the Christian Exodus? They seek to establish a modern, Christian theocracy in the US. They are starting with S. Carolina. The writing is on the wall.

For Christ's sake Mason. There's always going to be some nut-job that wants to paint Jesus in a Rambo Uniform. Our Deomocracy keeps those groups in check. Islamic Jihadists are real. They have organized terror cells. They influence a HUGE political movement. It's like your nightmare of a Christian Exodus being fully matured and armed, only it's Islamic. They want to establish a theocracy.

C'mon Mason. I understand, I AGREE with you that radlical Christianity has the potential to be very dangerous. That's not what this thread is about. It's about, in all honest reality, what radical christianity is today, and what radical islam is today. Can't you even admit just a little that Jihadists are more dangerous than almost non-existant the Ku Klux Klan today?
If even one of thost racist fucks made a move, we'd have wofl Blitzer doing full 24/7 coverage on it.

Just FYI I'm not what you would call a liberal. Americans need to realize that not only does the threat of religious oppression exist in the ME and Islam, but the same seeds are in this country and Christianity. That should scare the hell out of every Conservative, Liberal and Libertarian.

Ok, let's hit middle-ground here. I'm saying that radical christianty is kept in place as a seed in today's world. Radical Islam is a giant, contorted weed that's fully matured from a seed. Please tell me you agree at least on that. That's the whole point of the thread.

At 9/23/06 02:19 AM, Politics wrote: So what is the dispute of this thread? I was under the impression you were trying to insinuate that Muslim extremists are more violent than christian extremists
Don't tell me we're only arguing because we're on a different page...

I think that may be the case. :P I'm not saying one is inherantly more violent than the other. I'm saying for the current generation Radical Islam is more dangerous than Radical Christianity. That yes, radical Christians can be just as blood-thirsty and subversive to their religion as radical muslims can, BUT currently Jihadist's are the extremists that need to be put in check.

People have come together to fight oppression before. Civil Liberty oppresion, Nazi oppression, racial oppresion, and yes radical Christian oppresion. These things have been fought against and died for in the past. The torch has been handed to this generation to abolish Islamic oppression. The choice is up to you.

At 9/23/06 11:25 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 9/23/06 12:30 AM, TheMason wrote:

I'm saying these are the global enemies of the current generation. Beheadings, child martyrs, clit-removal of women; it's inexcuable. And it's influence and free reign has gone unchecked long enough.

One thing about the relation of Islam to women's rights is that these kindof things are not found in the Qur'an. They are vestiges of tribal customs found throughout the ME. In fact there is a feminist Islamism that views these sort of things as counter to Islam. After all, like Jesus, Muhammed's ministry was funded by women. The reason I write this is ppl have a tendancy to paint the whole religion as being harmful or callous towards women. People forget that groups such as the Menonites can approach this level of treatment of their women. Warren Jeffs and David Koresh also demonstrate a Christian history (and a modern one) of child abuse. Pat Robertson advocating political assasination, assasination lists of abortion doctors, blowing up gay and lesbian nightclubs, maybe it lacks the gruesome theatrics of a beheading but it is remarkably close...

:: Jefferson was his own mix of deist and theist. He did not believe in the Trinity, regarding it as trans-existantial nonsense. I'm catholic, clearly believing in a certain element of the Trinity. I'm not so shallow and narrow-minded to negate Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence just because he didn't believe exactly how I believe. That holds true to any other religion; I may not agree with all of it, but I understand there is much to learn from other points of view. It's our God-given right to think freely.

I'm also Catholic, but I'm also drawn to his deist worldview.

Take a History and a contemporary poly sci class. Once you get to the graduate level then you will be on the same playing field as this "liar".

When did I ever call Jefferson a liar?

You didn't, you called me one. If you don't agree with what I say tell me I'm wrong or you disagree. It is impolite to say someone is lying, especially when they have history on their side.

For Christ's sake Mason. There's always going to be some nut-job that wants to paint Jesus in a Rambo Uniform. Our Deomocracy keeps those groups in check. Islamic Jihadists are real. They have organized terror cells. They influence a HUGE political movement. It's like your nightmare of a Christian Exodus being fully matured and armed, only it's Islamic. They want to establish a theocracy.

C'mon Mason. I understand, I AGREE with you that radlical Christianity has the potential to be very dangerous. That's not what this thread is about. It's about, in all honest reality, what radical christianity is today, and what radical islam is today. Can't you even admit just a little that Jihadists are more dangerous than almost non-existant the Ku Klux Klan today?
If even one of thost racist fucks made a move, we'd have wofl Blitzer doing full 24/7 coverage on it.

Ok, let's hit middle-ground here. I'm saying that radical christianty is kept in place as a seed in today's world. Radical Islam is a giant, contorted weed that's fully matured from a seed. Please tell me you agree at least on that. That's the whole point of the thread.

Look I grew up Catholic in a S. Baptist stronghold. I have felt their hate and disdain for me. This was also the area that the "Covenant, Sword. Arm of the Lord" trained. I have spent my life hearing "Christians" spreading words of hatred and war. I see both extremist Islam and Christianity as equally bad.

However, yes Islamist violence is more pervasive right now. However, all too often ppl lump different events under the Jidhadists that don't belong:

Palestine is a Nationist struggle against foreigners who have taken their land and pushed them into refugee camps and at times shoot them for sport.

Somalia is not an Islamic crisis but rather is the extension of Warlordism.

Hussein was not a "good Muslim ruler" in that he ruled a Secular government. UBL had nothing but contempt for Saddam.

One of the things about Democracies is Hitler was elected. There are movements in this country that seek to overthrow the government through force of arms, and others who would do it through the ballot box. Thus I'm not too confident in our system's ability to keep these things in check. In fact I give a 50/50 chance that the US will be a theocracy in my lifetime...

AAK

At 9/24/06 07:37 PM, TheMason wrote: One thing about the relation of Islam to women's rights is that these kindof things are not found in the Qur'an. They are vestiges of tribal customs found throughout the ME. In fact there is a feminist Islamism that views these sort of things as counter to Islam.

Absolutely. It's the subversion of Islam that is the danger. There are so many public speakers that want people to hate Islam, to see it as a religion of violence. As a catholic myself I find only God is justified in judging creeds; a religion that practices peacefully amongst me should be defended to do so. After all, they have granted me the respect to do in peace as well.

You didn't, you called me one. If you don't agree with what I say tell me I'm wrong or you disagree. It is impolite to say someone is lying, especially when they have history on their side.

Fair enough, I highly disagree that a people are inherantly destined to revert to radical ideology in the face of poverty and oppression. It takes hard work, vision, and most imporantly humanity to progress anywhere worthile in this world. I understand arab muslims share a victim-relationship with their surroundings, but they also share a responsibility for it. I suppose we can hit middle-ground here and say the killing off of their enlightened thinkers by their own hands and others doesn't help their cause. The only difference I think we'll agree to disagree on is that I find they share a responsibility for their own bloodshed.

For Christ's sake Mason. There's always going to be some nut-job that wants to paint Jesus in a Rambo Uniform. Our Deomocracy keeps those groups in check. Islamic Jihadists are real. They have organized terror cells. They influence a HUGE political movement. It's like your nightmare of a Christian Exodus being fully matured and armed, only it's Islamic. They want to establish a theocracy.

One of the things about Democracies is Hitler was elected. There are movements in this country that seek to overthrow the government through force of arms, and others who would do it through the ballot box. Thus I'm not too confident in our system's ability to keep these things in check. In fact I give a 50/50 chance that the US will be a theocracy in my lifetime...

Well it seems this we can agree on, though I have slightly more confidence in the system. I do not, however, share the confidence George Bush has in spreading democracy to the middle-east. A people must be wise, thirsty for change, and independant in order for a federalist system to benefit from democracy. I don't know that they are, because of all the seperated perversions of Islam you have stated.

It sounds like through a series of twists and turns we agree on some level; though certainly not on the technicalities of it all. If you can recognize the threat of radical islam being the threat of today's generation, I can very surely recognize the threat of a theocracy rising to counteract it.

At 9/24/06 08:27 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 9/24/06 07:37 PM, TheMason wrote:

Absolutely. It's the subversion of Islam that is the danger. There are so many public speakers that want people to hate Islam, to see it as a religion of violence.

This is what I hate. I go to the book store and see all these books written by religious "scholars" on Islam. These people pick and choose things out of the Qur'an and history to point a finger to a major religion and claim that it is warlike. The same finger could just as easily be pointed back at our religion (and I do believe with a little more basis in history when compared with Islamic history).

:As a catholic myself I find only God is justified in judging creeds; a religion that practices peacefully amongst me should be defended to do so. After all, they have granted me the respect to do in peace as well.

This is what I believe also; judgement is God's to deal out not mine or yours or any other mortal. Islam stands out as making it the duty of Muslims and Muslim rulers to protect the right of Jews and Christians to practice their religion unmolested within Muslim lands. Look at the Coptic Christians in Egypt and their relations with the Muslim majority. (Although there is a type of poll tax levied for this right).

Fair enough, I highly disagree that a people are inherantly destined to revert to radical ideology in the face of poverty and oppression. It takes hard work, vision, and most imporantly humanity to progress anywhere worthile in this world. I understand arab muslims share a victim-relationship with their surroundings, but they also share a responsibility for it. I suppose we can hit middle-ground here and say the killing off of their enlightened thinkers by their own hands and others doesn't help their cause. The only difference I think we'll agree to disagree on is that I find they share a responsibility for their own bloodshed.

From what I've seen there is a very high corellation between times of great stress and increased religiousness. Look at how many legends and myths about divine intervention or causation that arose out of Hurricane Kathrina. There is a drive to seek peace in the next life when one's Earthly life is one that is not only economically or politically oppressed...but has become totally devoid of hope.

Well it seems this we can agree on, though I have slightly more confidence in the system.

Well you've got to understand I've been through a divorce so I maybe a little cynical! (lol)

But seriously, when our President seems to be making decisions based more on faith than what is in the best interest of the country, Republican candidate in Florida making comments on the need for voters to vote based on faith, and groups like Christianexodus.org...these are all indicators that people want to change our system from within into a theocracy. This scares me. In 2008 I am leaning towards voting Democrat for the first time in my life because I want to see the religious right's power significantly reduced.

:I do not, however, share the confidence George Bush has in spreading democracy to the middle-east. A people must be wise, thirsty for change, and independant in order for a federalist system to benefit from democracy. I don't know that they are, because of all the seperated perversions of Islam you have stated.

Strangely, I do...after all it was the Islamic Persians who saved Western Civ after the fall of the Byzantine Empire (aka: Rome part II or the Eastern Roman Empire). Until the US began support of Israel many in the region looked to the American government as a model of how regional governments should be.

It sounds like through a series of twists and turns we agree on some level; though certainly not on the technicalities of it all. If you can recognize the threat of radical islam being the threat of today's generation, I can very surely recognize the threat of a theocracy rising to counteract it.

Like I said I'm a veteran of the GWOT. I've got some training to do, but after the next year is over and I'm fully re-trained Uncle Sam will see fit to let me volunteer to go to Afghanistan...

AAK

Nylo,

Just a story I remembered from when I was stationed in S. Korea:

While riding my moutain bike some frinds and I happened upon a Buddhist temple where we met of all things an American, Yale educated Buddhist nun. We sat on rugs in the altar room/meditation chamber and talked about Buddhist theology/philosophy. After awhile I noticed video cameras on the ceiling. I asked why that was. She explained that 1) sometimes drunks would wander into the temple and harass the nuns and 2) in the 1990s one of the Presidents was an evangelical Christian. Now during this time it became common for Christians to commit arson upon the temples. The extreme danger is that many temples are 100s of years old and wood. (When I say 100s, I mean like 400-600 years old.) These ancient buildings would go up like a tinderbox.

This presented a serious threat to life, limb and national history. The reason was since the Buddhists are not Christians and did not want to convert. When I hear about people talking about how Muslims will kill Christians for not converting I just think about the Christian attacks on Buddhists...

I guess the worst thing in this world is the religious fanatic who betrays his religion by going against it for imaginary crusades to defend it.

The Muslims need a leader, tell them what they are doing is wrong. The pope says something about the Muslims being Violent , The Muslims get mad, and to prove the pope wrong they kill nuns. yea the crusades was a violent time is our religion, but it happened along time ago the be-headings ,.torture, bombing,and killing of innocent people is going on today. see Christians ,apart from some being annoying and to preachy, we are not stupid ,unlike Islam who kill for fun, they even kill each other, because the Sunni, and sheit will not work anything out.
it is very unfortunate but it is middle eastern people are violent. they need someone to take charge, because like it our not Muslims are the biggest threat to the world today

At 9/23/06 11:04 PM, a-harmless-pig wrote: LOL RADICAL CHRISTIANITY sooooooooooo... dangerous. they are the same as muslim extremists.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One's much and such the same as the next if you ask me.

At 9/25/06 05:24 PM, troubles1 wrote: . see Christians ,apart from some being annoying and to preachy, we are not stupid ,unlike Islam who kill for fun, they even kill each other, because the Sunni, and sheit will not work anything out.

(It's Shi'ite not sheit)

Also when did Protestants and Catholics start getting chummy? I didn't get the memo. So do the Baptists now accept this Catholic as being a Christian? What about the Coptics, are they now considered Christians instead of heretics? Let's not even go into the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox... Also is there a universal Christian Bible yet? How many books/gospels are there?

I'm sorry I'm asking all these questions troubles...I just didn't get the memo that these schisms had been resolved!

AAK

At 9/25/06 05:24 PM, troubles1 wrote: The Muslims need a leader, tell them what they are doing is wrong. The pope says something about the Muslims being Violent , The Muslims get mad, and to prove the pope wrong they kill nuns. yea the crusades was a violent time is our religion, but it happened along time ago the be-headings ,.torture, bombing,and killing of innocent people is going on today. see Christians ,apart from some being annoying and to preachy, we are not stupid ,unlike Islam who kill for fun, they even kill each other, because the Sunni, and sheit will not work anything out.
it is very unfortunate but it is middle eastern people are violent. they need someone to take charge, because like it our not Muslims are the biggest threat to the world today

I agree with you on everything except that the muslims allready have leaders.
Mahmud Achmenijadamoons, Usamma Bin Laden, and the Jihadists. those are their leaders.

It's not middle easterns that are violant it's the arabs that are violent.

At 9/25/06 10:39 PM, a-harmless-pig wrote: It's not middle easterns that are violant it's the arabs that are violent.

Seeing as ignorance is bliss, you must be pretty blissful.

Ah, I like how liberals like to follow like sheep on arrogantly believe that radical islam is just as dangerous as mainstream christianity.

*sniff* It really brings a tear to my eye knowing how people can be so stupid.