deleted user 10.08.2006 08:00 |
link they predicted thousands could've been killed but thankfully they were caught in time and fair play to the police and security at the airports! |
The Mir@cle 10.08.2006 08:03 |
Very scary! |
The Fairy King 10.08.2006 08:06 |
Yep, just heard it on the radio! I guess it's time for that crap again... |
deleted user 10.08.2006 08:07 |
you know what I think on that subject don't you? |
deleted user 10.08.2006 08:15 |
Its ridiculous,they now have to check babies bottles when going on board because they were gonna use liquid bombs! |
Freya is quietly judging you. 10.08.2006 08:18 |
Apparently they're not letting anybody take hangbaggage on board at any airports in the UK.. You can only take medication and supplies for babies. |
magicalfreddiemercury 10.08.2006 08:32 |
I saw the AP article early this morning and it didn't read with any urgency. The updated one reads more like the BBC article. Very frightening. I would like to know some specifics about the 21 they arrested - like if there's any connection between them and the 11 Egyptians 'students' who came here in July (3 of whom have been found and arrested). |
AspiringPhilosophe 10.08.2006 08:58 |
I heard about this as soon as it broke (Like 2am Eastern time here) because I was at work. It's getting pretty crazy, from what I hear. Heathrowe is completely closed, every flight coming into the US from the UK is on Code Red, no carry-ons are allowed, and you have to take all of your "liquid and gel" things out of your bags to get checked. You know, things like hair gel and stuff. My only question is, they knew this was coming, there were signs (The guy from Al-Quida saying that they were pulling off of another smaller train bombing because "something much bigger was in the works"). So they announce to the world that they foiled the plot, and good for them for doing that (What do you know? The Transportation Screw-Up Administation did something right for a change!!). But why announce all of the specifics? You may have stopped this one, but they will plan more. Announcing that they foiled this plan is only going to give people a false sense of security. The terrorists will try again. |
deleted user 10.08.2006 09:03 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I heard about this as soon as it broke (Like 2am Eastern time here) because I was at work. It's getting pretty crazy, from what I hear. Heathrowe is completely closed, every flight coming into the US from the UK is on Code Red, no carry-ons are allowed, and you have to take all of your "liquid and gel" things out of your bags to get checked. You know, things like hair gel and stuff. My only question is, they knew this was coming, there were signs (The guy from Al-Quida saying that they were pulling off of another smaller train bombing because "something much bigger was in the works"). So they announce to the world that they foiled the plot, and good for them for doing that (What do you know? The Transportation Screw-Up Administation did something right for a change!!). But why announce all of the specifics? You may have stopped this one, but they will plan more. Announcing that they foiled this plan is only going to give people a false sense of security. The terrorists will try again.Put it this way,if this catastrophical event wasnt stopped,people would be giving out that nothing was done about it,but now something has been done,people are still giving out.Its hard to please everyone. |
magicalfreddiemercury 10.08.2006 09:05 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: But why announce all of the specifics? You may have stopped this one, but they will plan more. Announcing that they foiled this plan is only going to give people a false sense of security. The terrorists will try again.Terrorists will always try again, that's what they do. No one should let their guard down, but we can't be held captive by the possibility of another attack. Easy to say - not so easy to do. |
AspiringPhilosophe 10.08.2006 09:06 |
That's true...you will never please everyone. My point was that people can't rest on their laurels. They can't sit back and say, "Well, that was the big one, and we foiled it. Good job, guys! Our job is done." There will be more plots like this, and at some point one will slip through the cracks. It's excellent they caught this one, and applause to the authorities on both sides of the pond for cathing this one in time, but I hope they don't relax now that they've caught this one. More will come. That's a certainty. |
AspiringPhilosophe 10.08.2006 09:09 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Excellent point. You've got to be aware of things like this happening, but you can't let it keep you captive. It's all about finding a "happy medium", or a balance between safety and security. Going too soft or too hard on the security is bad.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: But why announce all of the specifics? You may have stopped this one, but they will plan more. Announcing that they foiled this plan is only going to give people a false sense of security. The terrorists will try again.Terrorists will always try again, that's what they do. No one should let their guard down, but we can't be held captive by the possibility of another attack. Easy to say - not so easy to do. |
Poo, again 10.08.2006 09:16 |
A friend of mine is supposed to fly to London tomorrow... scary. |
deleted user 10.08.2006 09:21 |
Of course security measures are not going to cease just because they foiled one plot but it does give the community a boost because it shows people are working against these sort of attacks and are going to keep doing so as it is a problem that will never go away! |
Dances With Freddie 10.08.2006 09:51 |
one of my best friends came home from london yesterday.... bet she's really glad to be home! I'm sick of all this terror! I wish they would just stop.... :( |
DudleyFufkin 10.08.2006 09:59 |
Die muslims Die. |
great king rat 1138 10.08.2006 10:16 |
DudleyFufkin wrote: Die muslims Die.You really are thick as pigshit aren't you! How can anyone be so ignorant as to assume that all muslims are hoping to blow people up! The hatred and fear building up regarding muslims now is becoming scarily close to the german attitude towards Jews in 1930-33, and we all know how that one ended up. DudleyFuckwit and I are both welsh, but does that mean that we work down the mines and shag sheep? I can't speak for uncle knobhead here, but I know I don't. So please, enough of the generalisations! |
DudleyFufkin 10.08.2006 10:21 |
yea, and look what happened to israel, they just bombed lebanon. |
great king rat 1138 10.08.2006 10:28 |
DudleyFufkin wrote: yea, and look what happened to israel, they just bombed lebanon.Which is something that I'm completely against, but does that mean that Hitler was right in your eyes? |
Micrówave 10.08.2006 12:00 |
Where are all the "Stop the war" or "Stop illegal wire tap" people now? I more than willing to give up a little more of my freedom so we can catch some more of these (laughs) terrorists. Thank God we've got come competant leaders running our countries and not some pacifists who would be taking a body count right now. |
magicalfreddiemercury 10.08.2006 12:03 |
Mircrowave! wrote: Where are all the "Stop the war" or "Stop illegal wire tap" people now? I more than willing to give up a little more of my freedom so we can catch some more of these (laughs) terrorists. Thank God we've got come competant leaders running our countries and not some pacifists who would be taking a body count right now.Wow. That is one loaded post. Let me just say, I don't consider these 'leaders' competent, I consider them damn lucky. |
Mr Mercury 10.08.2006 12:04 |
<font color=dark red>WhiteQueen wrote: Its ridiculous,they now have to check babies bottles when going on board because they were gonna use liquid bombs!I am personally glad that they are doing this because terrorists bombers will use anything to hide liquid bombs in as they are believed to have done here. So yes it is a inconvenience to decent mothers with babies, but at least they and the rest of the passengers will be safe. |
Mr.Jingles 10.08.2006 12:09 |
great king rat 1138 wrote:By calling for the death of all Muslims, Dudley is bringing himself down to the level of Hitler.DudleyFufkin wrote: yea, and look what happened to israel, they just bombed lebanon.Which is something that I'm completely against, but does that mean that Hitler was right in your eyes? Which doesn't surprise me as he's well know to be a sick racist fuck. His mother should be proud to give birth to such a despicable human being. |
Micrówave 10.08.2006 12:10 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't consider these 'leaders' competent, I consider them damn lucky.No offense, but you just made my point. They weren't lucky... a lot of work went into the investigation and apprehension of these people. It is ignorant to assume that luck played a role. Do you think they just walked into the airport and security found a quart of nitrolglycerin in their Slurpee cups? Instead of criticizing every little fault, why not see the big picture, as we all saw today, that, while inconvenient to some, the measures put in place by our governments are really helping the situation. Now I'm gonna go buy some $4/gallon gas. |
magicalfreddiemercury 10.08.2006 12:23 |
I think it's lucky that some people finally crossed their t's and dotted their i's. There's a lot to say for doing one's job, isn't there? There are processes in place for a reason. They've always been in place - before 9/11 choices were made to ignore/dismiss those basic processes. Luckily, they've decided to do the job the way it's supposed to be done. No offense taken, btw, and none intended. |
thomasquinn 32989 10.08.2006 12:33 |
They foiled something alright. But they do have a motive for presenting it as more than it actually was. |
Micrówave 10.08.2006 12:43 |
Yes, TQ. The War Against Terror informercial. Election time must be near. I can't wait to see the parade on Fox and CNN later today. The sad thing is that even though the plot was foiled, it was still successful in the eyes of the Binladians. So they'll try again next week. I think it's kinda funny how they're showing some official from the airport saying "If you don't HAVE to fly today, don't". What is that? A waiver? |
flash! 28068 10.08.2006 12:50 |
We really shouldn't be having these people influencing terror in the UK. WHY do we have them in our country? If that did happen, God knows! It would have been dreadful and would of affected so many people. I HOPE THESE MEN ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. What sick-minded BASTARD would want to kill so many innocent people for no REAL purpose? So this is how the world is going to be from now on? Everyone, not only here but worldwide, living in constant fear! Is this the world that we created...? |
thomasquinn 32989 10.08.2006 13:38 |
Yes, mass murder is wrong. But don't you people don't forget that this is exactly the same as was done by imperialist Europe in the age of exploration, by the Americans against the native Americans, by the western world in the fight against communism (Korea, Vietnam, Central America), etc. |
Killer Queenie 10.08.2006 14:45 |
I'm scared coz I'm going to America in 2 weeks and by the looks of things I wont be able to read any of my Queen book. 11 hours without doing ANYTHING!!! |
flash! 28068 10.08.2006 15:19 |
<font color=0099FF>*brianmay4eva* wrote: I'm scared coz I'm going to America in 2 weeks and by the looks of things I wont be able to read any of my Queen book. 11 hours without doing ANYTHING!!!I think you'd be too busy praying, my dear. |
deleted user 10.08.2006 15:54 |
Why do they want to kill more? Was 9/11 not enough? These people are a disgrace to all living things! I kinda feel sorry for the muslims that have nothing to do with these people..they're gona have a hard time.. |
PieterMC 10.08.2006 16:13 |
It amazes me how many people think that its all just a big hoax by the US and UK governments. They argue that because nothing happened that it is all a setup. Would they perhaps be happier if 5 or 6 planes full of people exploded over the atlantic? At least that would provide them with proof that the threat was real. It seems to me governments and security services are damned if they prevent an attack and damned if they dont stop one in time. |
Micrówave 10.08.2006 16:52 |
This just in...
Dennis Miller writes: It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Middle East. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one. |
Mr.Jingles 10.08.2006 17:33 |
<font color=red>Flash! wrote: I HOPE THESE MEN ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. What sick-minded BASTARD would want to kill so many innocent people for no REAL purpose?Because our so called "leaders" are also responsible for killing innocent people. |
flash! 28068 10.08.2006 17:58 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I hate those love birds Bush and Blair. Why can't they go get married together on some different planet and go fuck that one up.<font color=red>Flash! wrote: I HOPE THESE MEN ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. What sick-minded BASTARD would want to kill so many innocent people for no REAL purpose?Because our so called "leaders" are also responsible for killing innocent people. |
user name 10.08.2006 19:01 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:To give them the benefit of the doubt, using the deaths of innocent people as a means to an end (such as Hitler did, as that seems to be a popular topic), which is what terrorists do, is far worse than accidentally incurring the deaths of innocent people as the aftermath of a means that was not necessarily well thought out, as is the result of the actions of the United States and Great Britain. We must not forget that intent should be weighed far more considerably than result.<font color=red>Flash! wrote: I HOPE THESE MEN ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. What sick-minded BASTARD would want to kill so many innocent people for no REAL purpose?Because our so called "leaders" are also responsible for killing innocent people. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 10.08.2006 19:24 |
I'm glad I came back from my holiday before all this shit happened.... =[ |
deleted user 10.08.2006 19:25 |
I travel to the UK on a regular basis and even im freaked out now |
Queen are the Champions 10.08.2006 19:27 |
i've been freaked out since 9/11 |
deleted user 10.08.2006 19:48 |
that didnt freak me out suprisingly,but I think thats because its not as near to me as the UK,I do know someone that died in 9/11 though so it didnt go past me without sad feelings at all |
All I Hear Is Radio Gaga 11.08.2006 01:36 |
I'm supposed to fly to London a week from Saturday, but now I'm not sure if we are going... "Imagine all the people, living life in peace." cheers H |
deleted user 11.08.2006 02:01 |
<font color=dark red>WhiteQueen wrote: Its ridiculous,they now have to check babies bottles when going on board because they were gonna use liquid bombs!WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!? thats a bit.... wow |
deleted user 11.08.2006 02:02 |
All I Hear Is Radio Gaga wrote: I'm supposed to fly to London a week from Saturday, but now I'm not sure if we are going... "Imagine all the people, living life in peace." cheers HYooooooo oooo ooouuuuuuu |
Mr.Jingles 11.08.2006 12:22 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:When someone's loved ones have been killed by "accident", there's little difference between what's either done on purpose or putting civilians lives in danger for the sake of killing terrorists. Especially when it comes to unjustified conflicts like in Iraq or Lebanon.Mr.Jingles wrote:To give them the benefit of the doubt, using the deaths of innocent people as a means to an end (such as Hitler did, as that seems to be a popular topic), which is what terrorists do, is far worse than accidentally incurring the deaths of innocent people as the aftermath of a means that was not necessarily well thought out, as is the result of the actions of the United States and Great Britain. We must not forget that intent should be weighed far more considerably than result.<font color=red>Flash! wrote: I HOPE THESE MEN ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. What sick-minded BASTARD would want to kill so many innocent people for no REAL purpose?Because our so called "leaders" are also responsible for killing innocent people. Our leaders might apologize for accidental loss of human lives, but I seriously doubt that they give a shit. |
Joeker 11.08.2006 12:43 |
fuck terrorists...you guys can suck on my chocolate salty balls. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 11.08.2006 16:18 |
Take the blinders off, folks..... We have been in the middle of WWIII since 9/12/2001. Thankfully, we have leaders that, regardless of public opinion, realize what is at stake, and have put us in prime position to be ready for the next step in this war. Don't kid yourselves, people. The War in Iraq is just a battle in the broader war that is still in its infancy. Take a good look at what is happening. It is going to be a very, very long time before it gets better. How anyone can not see this is simply mind-blowing. Also, I have been BOWLED over at the response from the radicals on this, just filling the airways with their rebuking of the suicide bombers-to-be. Pretty soon, you'll have the New York Times running front page stories about how Britain trampled on the rights of the would be bombers. Sadly, though, the liberal wing around the world keeps singing the same old song and dance. What will it take for them to remove the blinders????? |
user name 11.08.2006 17:29 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:The justification for the conflict in Iraq is still up to debate, so to assume that there is a clear conclusion is not very wise. However, regardless of how things are perceived in the eyes of the victim, my point still stands...<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:When someone's loved ones have been killed by "accident", there's little difference between what's either done on purpose or putting civilians lives in danger for the sake of killing terrorists. Especially when it comes to unjustified conflicts like in Iraq or Lebanon. Our leaders might apologize for accidental loss of human lives, but I seriously doubt that they give a shit.Mr.Jingles wrote:To give them the benefit of the doubt, using the deaths of innocent people as a means to an end (such as Hitler did, as that seems to be a popular topic), which is what terrorists do, is far worse than accidentally incurring the deaths of innocent people as the aftermath of a means that was not necessarily well thought out, as is the result of the actions of the United States and Great Britain. We must not forget that intent should be weighed far more considerably than result.<font color=red>Flash! wrote: I HOPE THESE MEN ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. What sick-minded BASTARD would want to kill so many innocent people for no REAL purpose?Because our so called "leaders" are also responsible for killing innocent people. For example, if I got hit in the head from a home-run baseball from a local stadium, it is almost expected that I would be angry at the stadium, or the teams playing, or the hitter of the ball, for this. However, it is not really reasonable to place a large degree of blame on them. |
Mr.Jingles 11.08.2006 19:17 |
There's a HUGE difference between common accidents and war. War is absolutely the last resolve to put an end to a conflict. By now we all know that the war in Iraq was completely unjustified. 40,000 civilians lives lost, over 2,000 American soldiers dead, and hundreds of thousands of innocent people injured were not worth taking Saddam Hussein out. Especially when we know now that he was far less the kind of threat that the Bush Admnistration made us believe he was. |
Mr.Jingles 11.08.2006 19:40 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Take the blinders off, folks..... We have been in the middle of WWIII since 9/12/2001. Thankfully, we have leaders that, regardless of public opinion, realize what is at stake, and have put us in prime position to be ready for the next step in this war. Don't kid yourselves, people. The War in Iraq is just a battle in the broader war that is still in its infancy. Take a good look at what is happening. It is going to be a very, very long time before it gets better. How anyone can not see this is simply mind-blowing. Also, I have been BOWLED over at the response from the radicals on this, just filling the airways with their rebuking of the suicide bombers-to-be. Pretty soon, you'll have the New York Times running front page stories about how Britain trampled on the rights of the would be bombers. Sadly, though, the liberal wing around the world keeps singing the same old song and dance. What will it take for them to remove the blinders?????Let's see what the conservative/right wing has to offer to make the world a better place?... the same as the radical left... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Has Iraq made the world a safer place?... NO Why is Osama Bin Laden still on the run?... GOD KNOWS WHY! Are we safer now than since September 11th?... Obviously not, and chances are the things will get nothing but worse. Instead of making things worse overseas, why not spend more time tackling terrorist cells within our borders? It is well known that there are hundreds of Al-Qaeda cells worldwide. Why not make a plead of cooperation with other nations to find them, instead of bombing a village where there are potential terrorists, but end up killing more civilians along the way. Our Middle East policy has done nothing but to provoke radicals even more, and at the same time make more Middle Easterns hold much more hatred against us than they had before. Think for once about the thousands of children who have been victims and witnesses of the mayhem caused in Iraq. Right there we have tons of kids who hold so much hatred in their hearts that they are very likely to grow up to become terrorists. Is it justified?... Of course not, but neither was our response by starting a pre-emptive attack on a nation that had nothing to be with 9/11. Sorry but your post above seems quite blind from reality and significantly ignorant. |
user name 12.08.2006 00:48 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: There's a HUGE difference between common accidents and war. War is absolutely the last resolve to put an end to a conflict. By now we all know that the war in Iraq was completely unjustified. 40,000 civilians lives lost, over 2,000 American soldiers dead, and hundreds of thousands of innocent people injured were not worth taking Saddam Hussein out. Especially when we know now that he was far less the kind of threat that the Bush Admnistration made us believe he was.Well, in real terms it was unjustified. But in situational terms, the fact is that there were some pretty glaring arrows pointing at an imminent threat from Iraq. In truth, there was no imminent threat. With 20/20 hindsight, going to war was obviously a terrible idea. However, at the time, there was intelligence that indicated a threat. There is no evidence to indicate that the administration exaggerated - they just told it as best as they knew it, which led to the current administration and the vast majority of the country's decision to go to war. You have to consider that a great majority of those who are currently against the war were at one time in support of it. It surprises me how many people blame the current administration for the war when all of them witnessed the almost blatant unanimity that supported the war at the time of its inception. In conclusion, it was reasonable to start the war; it is now reasonable to conclude that the war was, in fact, completely unnecessary. I'm not saying that this exonerates the administration. However, I do attack any baseless claims that the administration is somehow a force of evil, that is totally corrupt and amoral. Such accusations simply spew with ignorance, and are founded entirely upon conjectures based on a disagreement in terms of political ideas (for example, that the current administration is Republican, which is apparently the party of pure evil). |
Sir Archie Leach 12.08.2006 04:53 |
It's time we employed 'proper' war time measures. If that means searching every detail of every Muslim in the UK so be it. Of course there wil be complaints about human rights, cost, effort etc but the means justify the ends. It's time for the population to choose allegiances to their nation or their religion. I don't give a shit if you're a Pakistani or an Eskimo, if you enjoy the benefits of living here, you should put that nation first. If you don't like it fuck off somewhere else and don't come back. |
Sir Archie Leach 12.08.2006 05:10 |
Of course the usual apologists will scream 'racism' etc. Typical tatic of the left, more interested in shouting down the right than offering solutions. |
Poo, again 12.08.2006 08:43 |
Sir Archie Leach wrote: It's time we employed 'proper' war time measures. If that means searching every detail of every Muslim in the UK so be it.How exactly will you do that? It's not like you can instantly recognise a muslim on the street. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 12.08.2006 09:09 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:So, in your mind, we are NOT in the middle of WWIII?Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Take the blinders off, folks..... We have been in the middle of WWIII since 9/12/2001. Thankfully, we have leaders that, regardless of public opinion, realize what is at stake, and have put us in prime position to be ready for the next step in this war. Don't kid yourselves, people. The War in Iraq is just a battle in the broader war that is still in its infancy. Take a good look at what is happening. It is going to be a very, very long time before it gets better. How anyone can not see this is simply mind-blowing. Also, I have been BOWLED over at the response from the radicals on this, just filling the airways with their rebuking of the suicide bombers-to-be. Pretty soon, you'll have the New York Times running front page stories about how Britain trampled on the rights of the would be bombers. Sadly, though, the liberal wing around the world keeps singing the same old song and dance. What will it take for them to remove the blinders?????Let's see what the conservative/right wing has to offer to make the world a better place?... the same as the radical left... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Has Iraq made the world a safer place?... NO Why is Osama Bin Laden still on the run?... GOD KNOWS WHY! Are we safer now than since September 11th?... Obviously not, and chances are the things will get nothing but worse. Instead of making things worse overseas, why not spend more time tackling terrorist cells within our borders? It is well known that there are hundreds of Al-Qaeda cells worldwide. Why not make a plead of cooperation with other nations to find them, instead of bombing a village where there are potential terrorists, but end up killing more civilians along the way. Our Middle East policy has done nothing but to provoke radicals even more, and at the same time make more Middle Easterns hold much more hatred against us than they had before. Think for once about the thousands of children who have been victims and witnesses of the mayhem caused in Iraq. Right there we have tons of kids who hold so much hatred in their hearts that they are very likely to grow up to become terrorists. Is it justified?... Of course not, but neither was our response by starting a pre-emptive attack on a nation that had nothing to be with 9/11. Sorry but your post above seems quite blind from reality and significantly ignorant. I think that is the biggest problem of those on the left, who wish to play partisan politics out of Iraq. Have there been mistakes, sure. You have them in every war. But the constant drumbeat of the radical left, both in this country, and abroad, they DO have the "We Hate Bush" blinderson to the reality of what it happening in the Middle East. Your blather above is the same blather that the left has been bleating for years now. |
magicalfreddiemercury 12.08.2006 10:13 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: So, in your mind, we are NOT in the middle of WWIII? I think that is the biggest problem of those on the left, who wish to play partisan politics out of Iraq. Have there been mistakes, sure. You have them in every war. But the constant drumbeat of the radical left, both in this country, and abroad, they DO have the "We Hate Bush" blinderson to the reality of what it happening in the Middle East. Your blather above is the same blather that the left has been bleating for years now.WWIII? I've been saying no to people who say that because I don't see us (the 'good' guys) at war with a country but with individuals. Maybe it is WWIII after all since it's still all of us against all of them. The problem is the 'mistakes' that have been made by US and how they strengthen THEM. Those mistakes - I don't agree they were mistakes, btw, but deliberate actions carried out by arrogant leaders - sent those in the middle over to the other side. Those mistakes cost innocent lives. Casualties of war are a fact. Casualties of arrogance and disdain are what leads to more anger. Right now, the anger directed at the west - even from some within the west - is palpable. We are less safe now than we were before. Our country should be strengthened. Our focus should be on our ports and borders. Our military is stretched thin and their recruiting is way down. When things get tougher, as everyone predicts they will, who will protect us? Who will fight for the country who sent our troops into an unnecessary war? Who will trust us when we say we need to do this when the last time we said it it was a lie? And it was a lie. The world knows that. Instead of fighting those who planned 9/11 we went into another country whose leader had tortured his people for decades. Those people deserved to be freed from their dictator but not in the way it was done. The reasons for doing it changed weekly - WMD's, proliferation, "this is the man who tried to kill my daddy", humanitarian obligations. You don't beat bullies by being meaner bullies. You beat them by convincing the majority that this is what needs to be done. You don't use scare tactics but logic. You enlist the aid of friends, you don't insult and threaten them when they voice an opposing view. The 'Bush blinders' as you call them are not blinders at all but an aid to see things as they really are. And that, sadly, is much worse than they were. |
AspiringPhilosophe 12.08.2006 10:46 |
It amazes me to see how many people on this board still link 9-11 to Iraq. If memory serves (and I'm sure it does), 9-11 happend almost 2 years before the invasion of Iraq. To those who say, "Almost all of the people against the war now were for it in the beginning"....you are missing a very important point. Everyone was for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's when the war was expanded to include Iraq that people started scratching their heads. Granted, the reasons for invading Iraq were cooked up, but we need to remember that WE put Saddam in power in Iraq, because he was supposed to be the "lesser of the two evils" and would keep Iran in check, which he did until we took him out. You better believe our foreign policies made our country less safe today than it was before, but those policies were made long before Iraq...they are completely unrelated. Bin Laden is in his fifties, and has been spewing hatred at the West since he was in his twenties....that's 30 years at least of screw ups. And BOTH Democrats and Republicans are responsible for those foreign policies. As long as the perception exists in the Arab World that it's "Us against them", we will have to deal with these terrorists. Whether or not it's actually true is a moot point...all that anyone can judge the real world by is their perception of it, so perception is everything. Once the politicians get that through their heads (on both sides of the partisan divide), maybe they can figure out how to defeat the ideology of terrorism. You don't kill an ideology by killing all of the people in it, as Israel will find out in 10 years. Killing Lebanese Civilians is just making their problem worse, because that's at least one person for every civilian killed who is more suseptible, in their pain, to the "death to the west" brainwashing of the terrorists. Deal with the perception, stamping out the root of the terrorists before it can bloom. |
user name 12.08.2006 13:13 |
People did indeed start scratching their heads during the inception of the Iraq war, however, it wasn't until some amount of time into the war that the majority of the country turned around and decided that it was a bad idea. I'm definitely not saying that the war was a good idea, I am merely pointing out that, instead of making SCAPEGOATS out of Bush and Blair - which is all (both liberals and conservatives) are doing these days - we should rather find a solution to this crisis as it stands right now. To this day I have yet to hear a good idea come from any liberal or conservative. Many liberals say, "Remove all the troops from Iraq immediately," but that's not necessarily a good idea, and a potentially dangerous one. When this is pointed out to them, all they can respond to is, "Well, we shouldn't have been there in the first place!" Needless to say, this does not help AT ALL. Conservatives will say, "Let's keep on this war until we find every single terrorist and put them down!" They do not realize that such efforts merely breed more terrorists, and we will therefore NEVER find every single one of them. This simply pushes us further in the wrong direction. I'm not saying there even is a solution, but I am very certain that NOTHING anyone is saying is helping AT ALL. We need to stop bashing Bush as a SCAPEGOAT, and instead, we have to work together to find a SOLUTION. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 12.08.2006 13:25 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: People did indeed start scratching their heads during the inception of the Iraq war, however, it wasn't until some amount of time into the war that the majority of the country turned around and decided that it was a bad idea. I'm definitely not saying that the war was a good idea, I am merely pointing out that, instead of making SCAPEGOATS out of Bush and Blair - which is all (both liberals and conservatives) are doing these days - we should rather find a solution to this crisis as it stands right now. To this day I have yet to hear a good idea come from any liberal or conservative. Many liberals say, "Remove all the troops from Iraq immediately," but that's not necessarily a good idea, and a potentially dangerous one. When this is pointed out to them, all they can respond to is, "Well, we shouldn't have been there in the first place!" Needless to say, this does not help AT ALL. Conservatives will say, "Let's keep on this war until we find every single terrorist and put them down!" They do not realize that such efforts merely breed more terrorists, and we will therefore NEVER find every single one of them. This simply pushes us further in the wrong direction. I'm not saying there even is a solution, but I am very certain that NOTHING anyone is saying is helping AT ALL. We need to stop bashing Bush as a SCAPEGOAT, and instead, we have to work together to find a SOLUTION.Agreed. Iraq is simply a battle in the greater WWIII. History will prove that out, as we are in all reality just beginning this struggle. That is my entire point. I simply cannot understand for the life of me why some don't see the big picture. |
AspiringPhilosophe 12.08.2006 20:11 |
I'm all in agreement with you guys. Bush and v Blair are scapegoats, as would be any other person who happend to be in office when all of this went down. That's the beauty of politics. If good stuff happens when you are in office, even if you have nothing to do with it, you get the credit. If bad stuff happens, again, even if you had nothing to do with it, you get the blame. We are in this mess now, and there really isn't a good way to get out of it. Pulling out now wouldn't stop the problem (indeed it would probably make it worse), but keeping at it forever isn't the answer either, as MusicMan pointed out. Like it or not, the mess we created needs to be cleaned up, and I'm guessing it will take a good long time to do that. Good point on the WWIII by the way. Anyone who has ever read George Orwell's book "1984" can definately see the parallels between the events in that book and the War on Terror. |
That guy who digs energy domes 12.08.2006 23:14 |
I dont know where we're all getting this war from Last war that we declared was in 1941 |
user name 12.08.2006 23:49 |
The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: I dont know where we're all getting this war from Last war that we declared was in 1941War is much more than a legal term, I'll have you know. |
That guy who digs energy domes 13.08.2006 00:00 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It is not a war until Congress declares it a warThe Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: I dont know where we're all getting this war from Last war that we declared was in 1941War is much more than a legal term, I'll have you know. |
iGSM 13.08.2006 03:47 |
Quite worrying really. |
user name 13.08.2006 12:58 |
The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:That's not true. Of course, there is a formal protocol for a legal war, but it is not necessary to follow this to engage in a war in the general sense. The legal term for war is quite restrictive and obviously does not cover all wars.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:It is not a war until Congress declares it a warThe Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: I dont know where we're all getting this war from Last war that we declared was in 1941War is much more than a legal term, I'll have you know. |
Mr.Jingles 13.08.2006 15:50 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:Then show me what the right has done to make things better since 9/11?Mr.Jingles wrote:So, in your mind, we are NOT in the middle of WWIII? I think that is the biggest problem of those on the left, who wish to play partisan politics out of Iraq. Have there been mistakes, sure. You have them in every war. But the constant drumbeat of the radical left, both in this country, and abroad, they DO have the "We Hate Bush" blinderson to the reality of what it happening in the Middle East. Your blather above is the same blather that the left has been bleating for years now.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Take the blinders off, folks..... We have been in the middle of WWIII since 9/12/2001. Thankfully, we have leaders that, regardless of public opinion, realize what is at stake, and have put us in prime position to be ready for the next step in this war. Don't kid yourselves, people. The War in Iraq is just a battle in the broader war that is still in its infancy. Take a good look at what is happening. It is going to be a very, very long time before it gets better. How anyone can not see this is simply mind-blowing. Also, I have been BOWLED over at the response from the radicals on this, just filling the airways with their rebuking of the suicide bombers-to-be. Pretty soon, you'll have the New York Times running front page stories about how Britain trampled on the rights of the would be bombers. Sadly, though, the liberal wing around the world keeps singing the same old song and dance. What will it take for them to remove the blinders?????Let's see what the conservative/right wing has to offer to make the world a better place?... the same as the radical left... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Has Iraq made the world a safer place?... NO Why is Osama Bin Laden still on the run?... GOD KNOWS WHY! Are we safer now than since September 11th?... Obviously not, and chances are the things will get nothing but worse. Instead of making things worse overseas, why not spend more time tackling terrorist cells within our borders? It is well known that there are hundreds of Al-Qaeda cells worldwide. Why not make a plead of cooperation with other nations to find them, instead of bombing a village where there are potential terrorists, but end up killing more civilians along the way. Our Middle East policy has done nothing but to provoke radicals even more, and at the same time make more Middle Easterns hold much more hatred against us than they had before. Think for once about the thousands of children who have been victims and witnesses of the mayhem caused in Iraq. Right there we have tons of kids who hold so much hatred in their hearts that they are very likely to grow up to become terrorists. Is it justified?... Of course not, but neither was our response by starting a pre-emptive attack on a nation that had nothing to be with 9/11. Sorry but your post above seems quite blind from reality and significantly ignorant. ...and btw, what you call WWIII did not start with 9/11. It goes as far back as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in 1948 and the foreign policy applied by the US in the following decades. Things have gotten nothing but worse ever since, and 9/11 just pushed thing even further. |
magicalfreddiemercury 13.08.2006 18:45 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: ...and btw, what you call WWIII did not start with 9/11. It goes as far back as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in 1948 and the foreign policy applied by the US in the following decades. Things have gotten nothing but worse ever since, and 9/11 just pushed thing even further.And the war in Iraq has pushed things further still. |
user name 13.08.2006 21:57 |
A strong point I would like to emphasize is that NOBODY IS MAKING ANYTHING ANY BETTER. In fact, it only exacerbates things when we have the left criticizing the right, and vice-versa. In the meantime, NO ONE IS PROVIDING A REASONABLE SOLUTION, they are merely bitching back and forth at each other. We're in a really sorry situation, that we are indeed. |
That guy who digs energy domes 13.08.2006 22:45 |
Here are my points 1. If this was a war, we could turn that place into a massive glass tile in a matter of hours 2. Toppling Saddam wasnt the hard part, that took 3 weeks, this is about building a lasting democratic government in Iraq and trying to create peace between the 3 religious groups and trying to teach them toleration Thats all I have to say |
magicalfreddiemercury 14.08.2006 00:02 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: A strong point I would like to emphasize is that NOBODY IS MAKING ANYTHING ANY BETTER. In fact, it only exacerbates things when we have the left criticizing the right, and vice-versa. In the meantime, NO ONE IS PROVIDING A REASONABLE SOLUTION, they are merely bitching back and forth at each other. We're in a really sorry situation, that we are indeed.Sadly, Music Man, you are exactly right. |
Saint Jiub 14.08.2006 01:12 |
A withdrawal from Iraq would be interesting. How many more shrines can the Sunnis and Shiites blow up in the name of Allah without American and British interference? The casualties will be even higher, as the Shiite and Sunni terrorists will continue to hide behind human shields as well as deliberately target civilians (just like Hamas and Hezballah). In hindsite, the withdrawal should have started this past February (while taking Saddam out of Iraq to assure he never returns to power) when a civil war was born from the temple bombing orgy. |
AspiringPhilosophe 14.08.2006 07:19 |
Exactly. One thing that the US and UK forces haven't thought about is that the goal of creating "A United Iraq" may be a pipe dream. It's possible that the sides can't be united, and it would only be mass casualties on either side if they tried. Maybe Iraqi's would be better off if they split the country into three: one for the Kurds, one for the Shittes and one for the Sunnis. |
deleted user 14.08.2006 07:59 |
Personally I dont think this Iraq business will ever end,it might ease down but will never be gone completely. |
Saint Jiub 14.08.2006 08:16 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Exactly. One thing that the US and UK forces haven't thought about is that the goal of creating "A United Iraq" may be a pipe dream. It's possible that the sides can't be united, and it would only be mass casualties on either side if they tried. Maybe Iraqi's would be better off if they split the country into three: one for the Kurds, one for the Shittes and one for the Sunnis.The Sunnis will never go for a split country as Saddam's rule made them believe they are entitled to oil wealth that rightfully belongs to the Shiites and Kurds. |
Poo, again 14.08.2006 08:38 |
I think there must eventually be a split, it seems like the option that's going to save the most lives. It will also hopefully end all the bickering. |
AspiringPhilosophe 14.08.2006 08:47 |
End all of the bickering? Heck no. As long as there are Sunni's and Shittes and their differing religious beliefs, there will always be bickering. (One could argue that as long as there is religion, there will be bickering everywhere). But a split would save the most lives. |
magicalfreddiemercury 14.08.2006 09:05 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: (One could argue that as long as there is religion, there will be bickering everywhere).I think you've encapsulated the world's main problem in one sentence. |
Poo, again 14.08.2006 13:06 |
I didn't exactly mean that everything would be okay, maybe I could have chosen better words... |
user name 14.08.2006 17:19 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:It's not religion that's the problem. The true problem is human nature. The real thing to argue is that as long as there are differences in opinion, there will be bickering everywhere. Religion is but another of these differences in opinion.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: (One could argue that as long as there is religion, there will be bickering everywhere).I think you've encapsulated the world's main problem in one sentence. |
AspiringPhilosophe 14.08.2006 21:55 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Good point. It just seems that religion causes the bloodies of conflicts: a war for land or terroitory ceases as soon as the goal is acheived (even if only to be replaced by another war for territory). But religious wars are the worst, because after you "conquer" the people you are fighting, you spend the next phase of the war either forcibly making them believe the way you do, or you kill them. Lots of needless bloodshed.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:It's not religion that's the problem. The true problem is human nature. The real thing to argue is that as long as there are differences in opinion, there will be bickering everywhere. Religion is but another of these differences in opinion.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: (One could argue that as long as there is religion, there will be bickering everywhere).I think you've encapsulated the world's main problem in one sentence. |
Mr.Jingles 14.08.2006 22:08 |
It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance. |
The Real Wizard 14.08.2006 23:11 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: It's not religion that's the problem. The true problem is human nature. The real thing to argue is that as long as there are differences in opinion, there will be bickering everywhere. Religion is but another of these differences in opinion.Name one other difference of opinion that has caused more death throughout history than religion. |
magicalfreddiemercury 14.08.2006 23:18 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance.It's a matter of control, and religion is the best way to control people. Their souls are at stake. Tell them they'll reach the promised land if only they... fill in the blank ...and they will. For salvation. If it means torturing people in the name of whatever God they happen to believe in, then that's what they'll do, that's what they've done (through the centuries) and that's what they'll continue to do. IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world. |
Poo, again 15.08.2006 05:08 |
But one thing that I think is strange, is that there seems to be no such thing as a Christian fanatic group with a goal to kill/destroy/punish/whatever...fill in blank.... in the Muslim world? You never see Christian fanatics on television declaring war on the Muslim world, but it seems to be a rather common thing in muslim countries for their religious leaders and other fanatics to appear on television promoting holy wars against the west. Now why is that? Ah, yes, we imprison our fanatics, while Islamic nations really don't lift a finger... Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong? |
great king rat 1138 15.08.2006 05:12 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: You never see Christian fanatics on television declaring war on the Muslim world, Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?What about Dubya? He's a fanatic fundamentalist christian who seems to be doing a pretty good job of declaring war on the Muslim world. |
AspiringPhilosophe 15.08.2006 07:20 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Mr.Jingles wrote: It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance.It's a matter of control, and religion is the best way to control people. Their souls are at stake. Tell them they'll reach the promised land if only they... fill in the blank ...and they will. For salvation. If it means torturing people in the name of whatever God they happen to believe in, then that's what they'll do, that's what they've done (through the centuries) and that's what they'll continue to do. Absolutely. To quote the best comidian in the world, Mr. George Carlin: If you look back in history, God is one of the leading causes of death! Or this one from George: It usually goes like this. Do you believe in God? -No *shooting sound* Dead. Do you believe in God? -Yes Do you believe in My God? -No *shooting sound* Dead. My God has a bigger d**k than your God! IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world. |
Poo, again 15.08.2006 10:23 |
great king rat 1138 wrote:Bush is the leader of a nation, a president.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: You never see Christian fanatics on television declaring war on the Muslim world, Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?What about Dubya? He's a fanatic fundamentalist christian who seems to be doing a pretty good job of declaring war on the Muslim world. It's not what I meant. |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.08.2006 10:27 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But one thing that I think is strange, is that there seems to be no such thing as a Christian fanatic group with a goal to kill/destroy/punish/whatever...fill in blank.... in the Muslim world? ...Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?I give you... the Crusades. History shows religion to be the greatest 'cause'. For too many it is worth dying for. For too many it's worth killing for. |
Poo, again 15.08.2006 11:13 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Since when did we start talking about the Middle Ages? I was talking about the situation today, in 2006.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But one thing that I think is strange, is that there seems to be no such thing as a Christian fanatic group with a goal to kill/destroy/punish/whatever...fill in blank.... in the Muslim world? ...Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?I give you... the Crusades. History shows religion to be the greatest 'cause'. For too many it is worth dying for. For too many it's worth killing for. To put it simple: Aren't Muslim countries allowing their fanatics greater liberties than we in the West allow our counterparts? How come? Do they want a worldwide religious war, or something? Would they have anything to gain? |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.08.2006 11:21 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: Since when did we start talking about the Middle Ages? I was talking about the situation today, in 2006.Since you referenced my post (...fill in the blanks...) which said "through the centuries". And to understand or deal with issues today, we have to understand the past. History repeats itself and all that. |
The Real Wizard 15.08.2006 12:24 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But one thing that I think is strange, is that there seems to be no such thing as a Christian fanatic group with a goal to kill/destroy/punish/whatever...fill in blank.... Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?The pleasure will be mine. 1) Army of God 2) Freedomites 3) Nagaland Rebels 4) National Liberation Front of Tripura 5) Lord's Resistance Army 6) Ku Klux Klan Do some research into these. And I'd personally like to add Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to the list. |
AspiringPhilosophe 15.08.2006 12:29 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote:You've obviously never seen Pat Robertson, the Evangelical Christian and founder of the ultra-powerful lobbying group The Christian Coalition, on his TV show, the 700 Club. After 9-11 he did say publicly that he thought all Muslims should be slaughtered, and he was forced to take it back. Not to mention, since then he's said that the US should assassinate the president of Venezuala and that a town in Pennsylvania was going to feel the "wrath of God" for throwing out the public school board members who wanted to disallow teaching evolution in high school science classes, both of which he's had to apologize for.great king rat 1138 wrote:Bush is the leader of a nation, a president. It's not what I meant.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: You never see Christian fanatics on television declaring war on the Muslim world, Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?What about Dubya? He's a fanatic fundamentalist christian who seems to be doing a pretty good job of declaring war on the Muslim world. The rest of the fanatical Christian groups? They don't get the coverage, and many of them don't want it because they are so infamous. The KKK is a religious group (they use religion to further their case against blacks), and there is a "church" in Kansas that gets media coverage because it goes to soldier's funerals who have died in Iraq and protest the funeral, with signs that say things like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" because they believe Iraq is a punishment to the US for us being so "tolerant" of gays....which the US isn't tolerant of to begin with, since we don't let them get married and have the same rights as everyone else, so I don't even know where that argument is coming from. |
Maz 15.08.2006 13:16 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: After 9-11 he did say publicly that he thought all Muslims should be slaughtered, and he was forced to take it back.Source? |
AspiringPhilosophe 15.08.2006 13:19 |
Zeni wrote:I saw it on the news after 9-11. They played the clip of him saying it. But you can't find it anymore...he's disavowed saying it.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: After 9-11 he did say publicly that he thought all Muslims should be slaughtered, and he was forced to take it back.Source? |
Maz 15.08.2006 13:54 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:I would imagine that the clip would still exist somewhere on the internet. Robertson has enough enemies, plus he has said enough stupid things over the years, that it's out there, assuming the quote is correct. Just because he disavowed saying it doesn't mean it went away.Zeni wrote:I saw it on the news after 9-11. They played the clip of him saying it. But you can't find it anymore...he's disavowed saying it.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: After 9-11 he did say publicly that he thought all Muslims should be slaughtered, and he was forced to take it back.Source? Personally, this is the first time I've heard that he advocated the "slaughter" of Muslims. In fact, if memory serves, it was Falwell that said a few stupid comments after September 11 on the 700 Club, not Robertson. Robertson agreed with Jerry's comments, but I do not recall anyone saying that Muslims should be slaughtered. With a comment that incendiary, a citation is needed. |
Poo, again 15.08.2006 14:32 |
But still, are all these Christian fanatic organizations illegal? |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.08.2006 15:46 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But still, are all these Christian fanatic organizations illegal?Yes. |
Poo, again 15.08.2006 17:07 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Now how about the Muslim fanatic organizations in Muslim countries?<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But still, are all these Christian fanatic organizations illegal?Yes. |
user name 15.08.2006 18:16 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:The point of my post was to say that, should religion be eliminated from the world, all the bloody conflicts would still remain nonetheless. But it is true, that religion has been a primary target of wars. But consider that by and large the most modern wars were not "my religion is better than your religion"-based.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: It's not religion that's the problem. The true problem is human nature. The real thing to argue is that as long as there are differences in opinion, there will be bickering everywhere. Religion is but another of these differences in opinion.Name one other difference of opinion that has caused more death throughout history than religion. Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But one thing that I think is strange, is that there seems to be no such thing as a Christian fanatic group with a goal to kill/destroy/punish/whatever...fill in blank.... Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?The pleasure will be mine. 1) Army of God 2) Freedomites 3) Nagaland Rebels 4) National Liberation Front of Tripura 5) Lord's Resistance Army 6) Ku Klux Klan Do some research into these. And I'd personally like to add Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to the list. CMU HistoryGirl wrote:This is true. There are several Christian fundamentalists and their groups are quite numerous, despite being a small minority. HOWEVER, saying all Muslims should be slaughtered and being censured by the media is quite different than saying all Muslims should be slaughtered...and having several of your followers actually going out and slaughtering Muslims (as a comparison to the situation in the Middle E<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote:You've obviously never seen Pat Robertson, the Evangelical Christian and founder of the ultra-powerful lobbying group The Christian Coalition, on his TV show, the 700 Club. After 9-11 he did say publicly that he thought all Muslims should be slaughtered, and he was forced to take it back. Not to mention, since then he's said that the US should assassinate the president of Venezuala and that a town in Pennsylvania was going to feel the "wrath of God" for throwing out the public school board members who wanted to disallow teaching evolution in high school science classes, both of which he's had to apologize for. The rest of the fanatical Christian groups? They don't get the coverage, and many of them don't want it because they are so infamous. The KKK is a religious group (they use religion to further their case against blacks), and there is a "church" in Kansas that gets media coverage because it goes to soldier's funerals who have died in Iraq and protest the funeral, with signs that say things like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" because they believe Iraq is a punishment to the US for us being so "tolerant" of gays....which the US isn't tolerant of to begin with, since we don't let them get married and have the same rights as everyone else, so I don't even know where that argument is coming from.great king rat 1138 wrote:Bush is the leader of a nation, a president. It's not what I meant.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: You never see Christian fanatics on television declaring war on the Muslim world, Now, can I have a volunteer to tell me I got it all wrong?What about Dubya? He's a fanatic fundamentalist christian who seems to be doing a pretty good job of declaring war on the Muslim world. |
AspiringPhilosophe 16.08.2006 02:57 |
Zeni wrote:I realize that...I'll look for the citation when I get out of work tomorrow morning.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:I would imagine that the clip would still exist somewhere on the internet. Robertson has enough enemies, plus he has said enough stupid things over the years, that it's out there, assuming the quote is correct. Just because he disavowed saying it doesn't mean it went away. Personally, this is the first time I've heard that he advocated the "slaughter" of Muslims. In fact, if memory serves, it was Falwell that said a few stupid comments after September 11 on the 700 Club, not Robertson. Robertson agreed with Jerry's comments, but I do not recall anyone saying that Muslims should be slaughtered. With a comment that incendiary, a citation is needed.Zeni wrote:I saw it on the news after 9-11. They played the clip of him saying it. But you can't find it anymore...he's disavowed saying it.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: After 9-11 he did say publicly that he thought all Muslims should be slaughtered, and he was forced to take it back.Source? |
deleted user 16.08.2006 05:58 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:I think I remember hearing something of that sort very soon after 9/11.Zeni wrote:I saw it on the news after 9-11. They played the clip of him saying it. But you can't find it anymore...he's disavowed saying it.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: After 9-11 he did say publicly that he thought all Muslims should be slaughtered, and he was forced to take it back.Source? |
AspiringPhilosophe 16.08.2006 08:40 |
Here's the citations: link Remarks against Islam and Muslims Robertson has frequently denounced the religion of Islam and Muslim people. During a 1995 taping of The 700 Club, he called the religion a "Christian heresy".[42] During a September 19, 2002 episode of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Robertson claimed that the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, was "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic … a robber and a brigand."[43] He claimed on the September 14, 2004 episode of The 700 Club that "Islam is by the gun, by the fire, by the bayonet, by the torch."[citation needed] On the July 14, 2005 broadcast of the The 700 Club, he claimed that "Islam, at its core, teaches violence."[44] On the March 13, 2006 broadcast of The 700 Club Robertson stated that Muslims want global domination and that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoon drawings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is Satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with." He finished by stating "by the way, Islam is not a religion of peace."[45] The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Robertson's new comments "grossly irresponsible." He went on to say, "At a time when inter-religious tensions around the world are at an all-time high, Robertson seems determined to throw gasoline on the fire."[46] More Pat Robertson Qutoes that run along the same vein: If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality.... Can you imagine having the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as defense minister, or Mahatma Gandhi as minister of health, education, and welfare? The Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma and the Muslim idea of kismet, or fate condemn the poor and the disabled to their suffering.... It's the will of Allah. These beliefs are nothing but abject fatalism, and they would devastate the social gains this nation has made if they were ever put into practice. -- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 219 To see Americans become followers of Islam is nothing short of insanity.... The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers. -- Pat Robertson, quoted from the American Muslim Council press release, "Statement regarding anti-Muslim comments made by Pat Robertson on October 27,1997" and elsewhere. (Read Robertson's complete anti-Muslim segment.) "Don't you feel it rather interesting that every time you have a story about terrorism, it is linked to Muslim extremists? You don't hear somebody, 'Christian extremist killing film producers, Christian extremists blowing up trains.' It just doesn't happen. But it's Muslim extremists and, ladies and gentlemen, Islam, at least at its core, teaches violence. It's there in the Quran in clear, bold statements. Well over 100 verses dealing with violence against infidels, and that is what they're taught. They're also taught to sacrifice themselves in jihad against infidels to gain paradise. It is part of the teaching of that faith. And I know people so reluctant to say, 'Lets not identify those terrorists with these wonderful people.' Well, yes, they may be wonderful people, but this is what that faith teaches, and those who believe it sincerely in their hearts are those that think Osama bin Laden is their great hero. And I think we need to recognize that. Political correctness says that you're not supposed to recognize this, but it just happens to be the truth. Every story, you see it over and over again, Muslim extremists blew up tr |
Maz 16.08.2006 11:35 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: The problem is, he's smart enough to veil his threats towards others, so he can disavow them later. But it doesn't take more than 3 braincells to see the intention behind these remarks.Even so, it's a long way from calling something an evil religion and advocating the slaughter of millions. Robertson's comments are modern-day nativism, not genocidal. |
AspiringPhilosophe 16.08.2006 12:48 |
Zeni wrote:Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: The problem is, he's smart enough to veil his threats towards others, so he can disavow them later. But it doesn't take more than 3 braincells to see the intention behind these remarks.Even so, it's a long way from calling something an evil religion and advocating the slaughter of millions. Robertson's comments are modern-day nativism, not genocidal. |
That guy who digs energy domes 16.08.2006 12:52 |
My grandmother is into Robertson and she watches his show when we visit her. He does a lot of 'interpreting' the old testament. She tells me how the UN is a conspiracy for a 1 world government to prosecute christians. Now, she means well and feels it is her duty to God to do this but christ, if I would call anyone a fundamentalist christian, it would be Robertson. I go to church every sunday and I believe in Jesus but both sides need to tone down; its wrong to criminalize christianity but its also not right for christianity to force itself on other people. Let everyone get to heaven their own way. |
Maz 16.08.2006 13:10 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing.Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement. Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here. |
Poo, again 16.08.2006 13:20 |
My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come? |
Maz 16.08.2006 13:32 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?link |
The Real Wizard 16.08.2006 13:33 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Conservative christian (I refuse to capitalize the word) churches and media outlets like the 700 Club are doing this every day. You're not killing people, but you're essentially creating millions of zealots who will do nothing to solve the world's biggest problems when they grow old enough to have that potential. Their primary concern is "being saved", and they are taught to see the earth has a place to be left behind in favour of the platonic view of heaven in the sky. A person who won't spread awareness about world issues (many of which are religious issues which they will be blind to) and/or do a little something to help solve them is nothing but a self-serving person. In the grand scheme of things, from the viewpoint of doing better for this world outside of themselves, these people been mentally killed by means of indoctrination. Okay, I'll get flamed for this... but I'm prepared. |
Maz 16.08.2006 13:39 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Christian churches are doing this every day.I'll only flame you, Bob, for lumping fringe and "hardcore" units with the general body. As I'm sure you know, there are a great many churches that do not preach hardcore rhetoric, and even those that might be labeled "extremely conservative" still have community or international outreach programs. I just because a person watches the 700 Club doesn't mean they agree with everything Pat Robertson says, for example. |
The Real Wizard 16.08.2006 13:40 |
Zeni wrote: I'll only flame you, Bob, for lumping fringe and "hardcore" units with the general body. As I'm sure you know, there are a great many churches that do not preach hardcore rhetoric, and even those that might be labeled "extremely conservative" still have community or international outreach programs.Yes, I thought of that right after I read my post, and edited it, which was as you were writing. I'm well aware that not all churches are the uber-indoctrinating type. Zeni wrote: just because a person watches the 700 Club doesn't mean they agree with everything Pat Robertson says, for example.Right, but young children don't yet have that ability to separate things they agree with from things they disagree with. Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in. Do you think we'd have religious fanaticism if kids weren't sucked into it when they were young? |
Maz 16.08.2006 14:04 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in.I understand your point, but that comment sounds an awful lot like the conservative argument for more censorship. Overall, however, I'm not sure that kids provide the backbone for religious fanaticism. Traditionally in America, the people to fear were the older demagogues and not the young people. I can certainly think of more examples where it was middle-age folks who caused the problems, and not young fanatics. |
The Real Wizard 16.08.2006 14:24 |
Zeni wrote: I understand your point, but that comment sounds an awful lot like the conservative argument for more censorship.Not at all. Keeping kids away from religion isn't censorship. It's giving them free choice to enter a religion when they're old enough to decide if it's right for them. When you teach kids this stuff from when they're very young, it's all they know, and by the time they're teenagers or adults, the comfort has already set into a large chunk of them, leading them not to change later in life. I can certainly think of more examples where it was middle-age folks who caused the problems, and not young fanatics.But were the majority of these middle-age folks converted as adults, or were they indoctrinated as kids? That's the point I'm making. |
user name 16.08.2006 14:26 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: --The 700 Club, July 14, 2005 [Looks like Pat forgot about Timothy McVeigh, most of the Old Testament (chock full of violence) and those Christian extremists who protest military funerals]Still, he does (in a somewhat warped sense) have a point, if only in this one quote. Timothy McVeigh is an isolated case, and there was clearly something wrong with him psychologically. While the Old Testament is full of violence, you don't see the local Catholic Church in weekly combatative training sessions. And as for protesting military funerals...that's really nothing even close to terrorism. More like rude stupidity. Either way, it is an interesting thing to note that, statistically, the vast majority of all terroristic activities are perpetrated by a follower of the Muslim faith, usually because of this faith. I think this is what Millionaire Waltz and many others are wondering about. Edit: Take Scientology, for instance. People are quick to point out the secretive and almost terroristic nature of that religion, but they are very wary to point a finger at Islam...yet Muslims seem to be the "Crusaders" of the 21st century. Not trying to be racist at all, but that's just how it is, and this is what everyone is wondering about. |
Poo, again 16.08.2006 14:50 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Still doesn't really answer my question.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?Indoctrinating children with hardcore religious beliefs is terrorizing a child's mind. Conservative christian (I refuse to capitalize the word) churches and media outlets like the 700 Club are doing this every day. You're not killing people, but you're essentially creating millions of zealots who will do nothing to solve the world's biggest problems when they grow old enough to have that potential. Their primary concern is "being saved", and they are taught to see the earth has a place to be left behind in favour of the platonic view of heaven in the sky. A person who won't spread awareness about world issues (many of which are religious issues which they will be blind to) and/or do a little something to help solve them is nothing but a self-serving person. In the grand scheme of things, from the viewpoint of doing better for this world outside of themselves, these people been mentally killed by means of indoctrination. Okay, I'll get flamed for this... but I'm prepared. |
Maz 16.08.2006 15:48 |
Sir GH
You're original statement was that "Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in." Now, shoe's on the other foot for a moment, but can't people who oppose violence, sex, or politics on TV say the exact same thing as you did? That's what I meant by censorship.
You are arguing that religous fanaticism is wrongly instilled in the youth, but the same would hold true for any ideological avenue, whether it be racism, religion, or politics. The idea should not be keeping children away so that they can make choice as adults; tabula rasa does not work for 18 year olds. If anything, education is how these children learn the ways of the world.
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: But were the majority of these middle-age folks converted as adults, or were they indoctrinated as kids? That's the point I'm making.Malcolm X converted to the Nation of Islam as an adult; Martin Luther King's father was also a Baptist minister like his son. Fanaticism comes in all shapes and sizes, but can only be identified by their opponents. <font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: Still doesn't really answer my question.Read my link. Christian terrorism has and does exist. |
Sherwood Forest 16.08.2006 15:49 |
yeah the funny thing is i was flying home the day after they found that out, out of heathrow to new york a US city theyre talking about it was quite funny, kind of nice really, my flight got cancelled 3 times and i got to stay in london longer! |
The Real Wizard 16.08.2006 18:42 |
Zeni wrote: You're original statement was that "Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in." Now, shoe's on the other foot for a moment, but can't people who oppose violence, sex, or politics on TV say the exact same thing as you did? That's what I meant by censorship. You are arguing that religous fanaticism is wrongly instilled in the youth, but the same would hold true for any ideological avenue, whether it be racism, religion, or politics. The idea should not be keeping children away so that they can make choice as adults; tabula rasa does not work for 18 year olds. If anything, education is how these children learn the ways of the world.Shoving religion down kids' throats isn't education. Education is when you teach kids things that are true that they can take with them into the world. Teaching them that everyone who doesn't believe what they believe will end up in hell, along with ficticious stories written thousands of years ago, is not education. But I do see your point about censorship. Like anything else, the line must be drawn somewhere. But religion is different from the other examples you noted above. Families don't go to a special place once a week to be pressured into learning how to be racist, violent, or politically bigoted, and there aren't sacred scriptures that they read every night to instill any of these particular values into their children's fragile minds. Fundamentalist religion is a whole different ball game. |
Maz 17.08.2006 01:44 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: But religion is different from the other examples you noted above. Families don't go to a special place once a week to be pressured into learning how to be racist, violent, or politically bigoted, and there aren't sacred scriptures that they read every night to instill any of these particular values into their children's fragile minds. Fundamentalist religion is a whole different ball game.One day a week in a church, or every night at the kitchen table, it's all the same. It's ideology that can be good or bad, and it can be shoved down a child's throat. But let me ask this, if you don't teach them religion, then what do you teach them? It seems to me that in order to teach children the evils of "bad" religion, then you have to teach them why it is "bad." The point of parenting (which is my ultimate point) is to guide children into adulthood. To make an analogy, how many young adults screw up their credit for life because no one ever taught them how to use a credit card? |
AspiringPhilosophe 17.08.2006 07:25 |
Zeni wrote:OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing.Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement. Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here. He has continued to be a harsh critic of Islam and Muslims. In a radio interview on March 4, 2002, Falwell said of former President Jimmy Carter, "His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us." That's from Wikipedia (link What we need to to is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us?? Couldn't put it more plain than that. |
AspiringPhilosophe 17.08.2006 07:37 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. |
The Real Wizard 17.08.2006 12:36 |
Zeni wrote: But let me ask this, if you don't teach them religion, then what do you teach them? It seems to me that in order to teach children the evils of "bad" religion, then you have to teach them why it is "bad." The point of parenting (which is my ultimate point) is to guide children into adulthood.And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them. |
user name 17.08.2006 16:03 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:To be honest, that's quite a watered down version of "calling for the slaughter of all Muslims."Zeni wrote:OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is: He has continued to be a harsh critic of Islam and Muslims. In a radio interview on March 4, 2002, Falwell said of former President Jimmy Carter, "His message of peace and reconciliation under almost all circumstances is simply incompatible with Christian teachings as I interpret them. This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for. What we need to do is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us." That's from Wikipedia (link What we need to to is take the battle to the Muslim heathens and do unto them before they do unto us?? Couldn't put it more plain than that.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Except that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that he agreed with Falwell, who advocated the slaughter of muslims. By aggreeing, he's advocating the same thing.Ok, so when did Falwell say they should be slaughtered? All I can find is my post about Jerry saying stupid things (which, as I remember, were not about slaughtering) and Pat nodding in agreement. Jerry has also said many stupid things, but I cannot imagine he actually said Muslims should be slaughtered. I don't mind being corrected with a proper citation, but we don't have that here. |
user name 17.08.2006 16:05 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. |
Sergei. 17.08.2006 16:09 |
Liquid bombs?! They could have just brought in venomous snakes and let them loose all over the plane... |
Poo, again 17.08.2006 16:28 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I was just about to say that. Could it be that Muslim governments secretly support these organizations? I don't know, it's just a thought, so don't flame me. Or do, I don't care.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. |
AspiringPhilosophe 17.08.2006 21:54 |
<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote:Nah, I'm not going to flame you, because to a certain extent it's true. Not all Muslim Governments support these kinds of activities, but there are some (Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan pre-US Invasion) who do actively support these activities. Depends on the government you are talking about....but it's important to remember that not ALL Muslim governments support these activites.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I was just about to say that. Could it be that Muslim governments secretly support these organizations? I don't know, it's just a thought, so don't flame me. Or do, I don't care.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. |
AspiringPhilosophe 17.08.2006 21:56 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant. |
Maz 18.08.2006 00:49 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:I agree with Music Man that this comment is not as heinous as actually saying "slaughtered," but it certainly does not speak well of Jerry. Kudos to point it out, though. But, in the name of fairness, your earlier comments concerning Robertson are off base. Jerry's "do unto them" remarks were made via a radio interview, and not in Pat's presence. Therefore, Pat was not guilty by agreeing with Jerry in this case. And, to be safe, I mean no harm by my comments, Maggie. |
Maz 18.08.2006 00:55 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob. Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development. To give one historical example of what I mean: Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves. |
AspiringPhilosophe 18.08.2006 07:59 |
Zeni wrote:No harm taken, Zeni. Sometimes it's hard to tell when you are just really into a debate and when you are actually taking offence to things in the printed word...and I have not taken offence to anything said. I enjoy a good debate!CMU HistoryGirl wrote: OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:I agree with Music Man that this comment is not as heinous as actually saying "slaughtered," but it certainly does not speak well of Jerry. Kudos to point it out, though. But, in the name of fairness, your earlier comments concerning Robertson are off base. Jerry's "do unto them" remarks were made via a radio interview, and not in Pat's presence. Therefore, Pat was not guilty by agreeing with Jerry in this case. And, to be safe, I mean no harm by my comments, Maggie. I was pretty sure when I started looking that Falwell didn't say "slaughter"...he's not that stupid. But it's pretty obvious what he means by the comments he's made. Same thing, different name, really. Yes, I was mistaken where you point out. I was under the impression that Robertson was there when Falwell said it...it escaped my notice that it was two different interviews. Thanks for pointing that out though. :-) |
AspiringPhilosophe 18.08.2006 08:07 |
Zeni wrote:You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will".Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob. Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development. To give one historical example of what I mean: Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves. Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind). |
user name 18.08.2006 11:49 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists. As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it." |
user name 18.08.2006 11:55 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial.Zeni wrote:You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will". Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind).Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob. Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development. To give one historical example of what I mean: Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves. In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world. |
AspiringPhilosophe 18.08.2006 11:57 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I could buy that, if I didn't know how the media works. Can you honestly say that a huge event like 9-11 got the same media coverage as the frequent burning of black churches? Even Muslim things on a smaller scale, like the bombings in Jordan at a wedding, don't get the same amount of attention in the US media. The US media is scewed to be hyper-sensative to Muslim threats, because they've acted out the greatest damaging one so far. We always hear about stuff coming out of the Muslim world...but how often does the KKK make national news? I'm not arguing that the Muslim events are the same in scale as Christian events....I'm just saying the numbers are equal over any period of time. It just seems like there are more Muslim events because they get more media coverage.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart. As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists. As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. If you are waiting for someone like Falwell to actually say the word "slaughter" in relation to a group of people...you'll be waiting a long time. He's not that stupid. But "We need to take the fight to the Muslim Heathen |
Haystacks Calhoun II 18.08.2006 11:57 |
It is time in this world for SOMEBODY to be the voice of reason, and get everyone to the table, and settle this horseshit once and for all.... |
user name 18.08.2006 12:19 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I could buy that, if I didn't know how the media works. Can you honestly say that a huge event like 9-11 got the same media coverage as the frequent burning of black churches? Even Muslim things on a smaller scale, like the bombings in Jordan at a wedding, don't get the same amount of attention in the US media. The US media is scewed to be hyper-sensative to Muslim threats, because they've acted out the greatest damaging one so far. We always hear about stuff coming out of the Muslim world...but how often does the KKK make national news? I'm not arguing that the Muslim events are the same in scale as Christian events....I'm just saying the numbers are equal over any period of time. It just seems like there are more Muslim events because they get more media coverage.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:We all know that Christian fundamentalists who cause Christian terrorism exist. The fact is, though, the frequency and amplitude of this is almost unnoticable when compared to its Muslim counterpart. As for what Falwell said...all he really says is that the United States should take some pre-emptive preventative measures against Muslim terrorists...you can't really imply at all that he said, "All Muslims should be slaughtered, and we should do it."<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I realize that, but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christian terrorism exists. As for the "watered down" version of Falwell calling for the fight against Muslims....seems pretty clear to me. Of course, that's the problem...he's just smart enough to know not to say it outright, so he says it in a veiled way. But it doesn't take a genius to see what he meant.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:The terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: My original point here was that we never see Christian fanatics committing worldwide acts of terrorism. How come?The problem you have here is that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyone who thinks the media tells everything honestly is naive (trust me, I was a journalism major for 3 years). Christians haven't committed WORLD wide acts of terrorism, but they still committ terrorist actions. Just not on the same scale as the Muslim terrorists. Everytime a black chuch is burned by the KKK, that's an act of Christian terrorism. But you don't hear about that in the national news until a few churches are burned by the same group... unless you live in the area where it happend. Why don't they committ worldwide acts of terror anymore? Part of it is that they don't have the financial resources (Bin Laden is vastly wealthy), and those that do are under too much scrutiny by the government (The US government would never let a private individual get away with that, while other governments are willing to turn the other cheek). Terrorism is terrorism: it doesn't have to affect vast numbers of people before it becomes terrorism. It doesn't even technically have to hurt one person. Intimidation of Homosexuals/Blacks/Non-Christians is a form of terrorism. The Matthew Sheapard beating was a form of terrorism. The anti-abortion religious fundamentalists who came to my campus and disrupted classes on the lower floors of buildings by screaming in the windows and shoving pictures through the cracks in doors...that's terrorism too. |
AspiringPhilosophe 18.08.2006 12:19 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:The Historian in me is going to ignore your comment about the Protestant Reformation having no bearing on the modern world....that's not even worth arguing. I can think of very few things that have had as great a bearing.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial. In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.Zeni wrote:You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will". Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind).Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob. Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development. To give one historical example of what I mean: Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves. My point with |
user name 18.08.2006 12:29 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:The Historian in me is going to ignore your comment about the Protestant Reformation having no bearing on the modern world....that's not even worth arguing. I can think of very few thingsCMU HistoryGirl wrote:Seriously, though, the Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition have no bearing on the modern world. However, I think that Zeni was not saying that religion is necessary to avoid chaos, but rather that it was not detrimental and potentially beneficial. In truth, to your first point, those of religion tend to be several times more likely to take an active role in "making the world a better place," primarily through the Church, an organization who sees that as a main goal of theirs. You must understand that the vast majority of all religion in the west is not fundamentalist, and the fundamentalist portion is almost statistically negligible. Most Churches spend their time organizing donations and drives, volunteering time to actively help the poor, sending resources overseas to the needy, etc. Contrary to what one might believe, VERY LITTLE is done to simply "promote Christianity." Christianity is for the Church, philanthropy is for the world.Zeni wrote:You've got a point here, Zeni, but I think what Bob is trying to say is that you need to stop living life simply waiting for an afterlife, which will be better than the one you are living. You need to live for the here and now, and that's the only way this world will become a better place. Mighty hypocritical to claim that your religion tells you to make the world a better place, and then spend all of your time praying for "God" to make it better without putting any effort into it yourself, and when no results happen saying that it's "God's Will". Your example of the Black South is correct, but just because history is that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's the only right way. Children in many European countries (I saw this demonstarted in France when I studied abroad there) are raised secularly, with religion as an afterthought (if at all) And Europe hasn't fallen into chaos yet. It's doing just fine. In fact, it can be argued historically that Europe is better off now as a secular entity than it was when it was a religious entity (The Protestant Reformation and the Spanish Inquisition being two examples that come to mind).Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: And I agree with that. But there are plenty of alternatives to religion. You can teach children positive moral values seccularly, without an ancient religious tale and belief requirements to go along with them. In my opinion, kids raised without a god above to believe in are raised to be self-sufficient people, rather than childishly depending on a father figure "up there" to fix their problems for them.Allright, I'll agree to disagree with you, Bob. Your comments seem to indicate that you do not believe that religion has any role in a child's development. In my opinion (and history and anthropology seem to support this), religion is the foundation for most societies and serves a vital role in a community's development. To give one historical example of what I mean: Black churches in the American South provided an important outlet for Black independence and autonomy after the American Civil War. By the early 20th century, these churches fostered a growing civil rights movement that came to fruition in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, many of the movements leaders, like Martin Luther King and members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not only grew up in the church, but were ministers themselves. |
AspiringPhilosophe 18.08.2006 14:18 |
We appear to be running circles around the same issue here, MusicMan...and the funny thing is that I think we have the same goals and POV...just on opposite sides. Everything you've said has merit. I'm just cautioning against thinking that everything religious is good, because it's done a vast amount of harm. Everything that I've said has merit. You're just cautioning against thinking that everything secular is good, because it's also done a vast amount of harm. Same goals here, really. Both of us are just trying to avoid over-generalizations about religion, whether good or bad. The truth is we'll never know the answers to these questions, because over the long term, pound for pound, religion has done just as much good as secularism....and vice versa. At least we've demonstrated our ability to think about volitile issues without getting nasty and resorting to mud-slinging (a la politics). There need to be more people like us in the world. :-) |
user name 18.08.2006 14:42 |
Good point, let me summarize my point: Religion and secularity have been the basis of great good and bad throughout history. However, I believe that it is the people, not the religion or the lack thereof, that causes these virtues and atrocities. I am quite a secular person myself, but as a classical liberal, I do not believe that religion (or the lack thereof) should be a basis of any sort judgment or generalization. |
thomasquinn 32989 18.08.2006 16:44 |
Sir Archie Leach wrote: It's time we employed 'proper' war time measures. If that means searching every detail of every Muslim in the UK so be it. Of course there wil be complaints about human rights, cost, effort etc but the means justify the ends. It's time for the population to choose allegiances to their nation or their religion. I don't give a shit if you're a Pakistani or an Eskimo, if you enjoy the benefits of living here, you should put that nation first. If you don't like it fuck off somewhere else and don't come back.The world would be such a nice place if people like you decided that breathing was too left-winged. |
user name 18.08.2006 21:22 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:If this was a hockey discussion, I'd like to point out that my #1 left-winger would have to be Brendan Shanahan.Sir Archie Leach wrote: It's time we employed 'proper' war time measures. If that means searching every detail of every Muslim in the UK so be it. Of course there wil be complaints about human rights, cost, effort etc but the means justify the ends. It's time for the population to choose allegiances to their nation or their religion. I don't give a shit if you're a Pakistani or an Eskimo, if you enjoy the benefits of living here, you should put that nation first. If you don't like it fuck off somewhere else and don't come back.The world would be such a nice place if people like you decided that breathing was too left-winged. |
AspiringPhilosophe 19.08.2006 03:18 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Good point, let me summarize my point: Religion and secularity have been the basis of great good and bad throughout history. However, I believe that it is the people, not the religion or the lack thereof, that causes these virtues and atrocities. I am quite a secular person myself, but as a classical liberal, I do not believe that religion (or the lack thereof) should be a basis of any sort judgment or generalization.Excellent point, and I'm in agreement with you here, for the most part. I think we just misundestood eachother as defending religion always or bashing it always. Definately you can't judge anything based on one quality alone, I'm in complete agreement with you there. You need more pieces of the puzzle. However, it's always been my experience that there are certain puzzle pieces that give a pretty good idea about where other puzzle pieces are going to look like, and where they will go. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, which is why I took offence to the question of "Why is it always Muslim extremists who do this?",because that's got the implied accusation that all Muslims are evil or that Islam is an evil religion. I was just attempting to point out that it might look that way now (due to various factors) but that's not the case and won't be the case forever. Outsiders thought the same thing about Catholocism during the Crusades when they were slaughtering innocents in the Holy Land, so no one should rush to judgement on anything like that. |
Bob The Shrek 19.08.2006 08:03 |
It's nice to see a debate without all the name calling - carry on....... |
AspiringPhilosophe 19.08.2006 08:20 |
Thanks Bob the Shrek.... There are people in the world who are civilized, it just doesn't seem like it come election time. :-) |
eenaweena 19.08.2006 10:15 |
lesson learned: never ever genralize a race/religion/ ethnic group for one of their own's actions. :) another lesson learned: it's not the person you're supposed to hate. it's the action the person does. :) lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :) |
Mr.Jingles 19.08.2006 10:17 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:What some people seem to have been ignoring here is that there are still a lot of people who do good deeds in the name of religion.Mr.Jingles wrote: It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance.It's a matter of control, and religion is the best way to control people. Their souls are at stake. Tell them they'll reach the promised land if only they... fill in the blank ...and they will. For salvation. If it means torturing people in the name of whatever God they happen to believe in, then that's what they'll do, that's what they've done (through the centuries) and that's what they'll continue to do. IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world. Sure, there are tons of religious zealots who do nothing but spread hatred against anyone who doesn't share their same views. I can't deny the fact that religion has been used as a tool of fear and power, but why only see the ugly side of religion? What about all the charity organizations and people who based on their faith believe on helping others? |
Poo, again 19.08.2006 11:26 |
I'm afraid I'm in way over my head here. You guys will have to continue without me. |
user name 19.08.2006 12:58 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Racism dates back to as long ago as two different groups of people have known of each other's existence! |
AspiringPhilosophe 20.08.2006 07:54 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Good one MusicMan!!<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Racism dates back to as long ago as two different groups of people have known of each other's existence! |
eenaweena 20.08.2006 08:23 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:oh right. it dates back to the egytians. but i don't remember learning that the australopithecines showed any racism...<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Good one MusicMan!!<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Racism dates back to as long ago as two different groups of people have known of each other's existence! |
AspiringPhilosophe 20.08.2006 08:32 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:They couldn't...they were too busy surviving. It came down to once people didn't have to focus all of their effort on survival, then they got to wonderful ideas like greed, envy and racism.CMU HistoryGirl wrote:oh right. it dates back to the egytians. but i don't remember learning that the australopithecines showed any racism...<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Good one MusicMan!!<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Racism dates back to as long ago as two different groups of people have known of each other's existence! :-) |
eenaweena 20.08.2006 08:58 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:oh... i get it now... probably it started with the sumerians.. they're the first group in the world.<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:They couldn't...they were too busy surviving. It came down to once people didn't have to focus all of their effort on survival, then they got to wonderful ideas like greed, envy and racism. :-)CMU HistoryGirl wrote:oh right. it dates back to the egytians. but i don't remember learning that the australopithecines showed any racism...<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Good one MusicMan!!<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Racism dates back to as long ago as two different groups of people have known of each other's existence! |
That guy who digs energy domes 20.08.2006 22:23 |
man, why be a racist when there are plenty of good reasons to hate people? |
thomasquinn 32989 21.08.2006 09:36 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Way before that. The Romans were quite possibly the worst xenophobes that ever there were (not just Christians (there weren't any Catholics back then, they date back to 454 in its earliest form, and only in 1054 did they become a proto-Roman Catholic church, which differed from the (Eastern/Greek) Orthodox Church). The Romans hated everything that wasn't from Italia; it was so bad that the main reason why Octavian (later Emperor August, the first Roman Emperor) managed to win the support of the Roman people over his adversary Marc Anthony, was that he managed to convince them that Anthony was planning to change the capitol city of the empire from Rome to Alexandria). However, racism, discrimination and xenophobia were around in all early civilizations, from 'enlightened' ones like the ancient Greeks (Europe's first civilization) to those traditionally viewed as barbaric, such as the Germanic Peoples, and from Europe to South America. The one thing racism today proves, is that some people have had no benefit whatsoever of 3000 years of western culture, and roughly 6000 in the Middle East. |
AspiringPhilosophe 21.08.2006 13:15 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Excellent points....and all historically accurate I might add. (Welcome Back, Thomas)<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Way before that. The Romans were quite possibly the worst xenophobes that ever there were (not just Christians (there weren't any Catholics back then, they date back to 454 in its earliest form, and only in 1054 did they become a proto-Roman Catholic church, which differed from the (Eastern/Greek) Orthodox Church). The Romans hated everything that wasn't from Italia; it was so bad that the main reason why Octavian (later Emperor August, the first Roman Emperor) managed to win the support of the Roman people over his adversary Marc Anthony, was that he managed to convince them that Anthony was planning to change the capitol city of the empire from Rome to Alexandria). However, racism, discrimination and xenophobia were around in all early civilizations, from 'enlightened' ones like the ancient Greeks (Europe's first civilization) to those traditionally viewed as barbaric, such as the Germanic Peoples, and from Europe to South America. The one thing racism today proves, is that some people have had no benefit whatsoever of 3000 years of western culture, and roughly 6000 in the Middle East. |
thomasquinn 32989 22.08.2006 09:06 |
Thank you. I will be off again tomorrow though. My visits here will be rather infrequent the coming time, and probably never expected. In a way, I'm like Death: everybody knows I'm coming, but no one knows when, and they aren't exactly eager for me to drop by either! |
Haruko Aozora 22.08.2006 09:09 |
The Romans (and the ancient Greeks) were quite open with other religions than their... they borrowed a lot of gods from everywhere. THe problem with christianity was that it was too different and it was a possible danger... |
Lisser 22.08.2006 09:10 |
Bob The Shrek wrote: It's nice to see a debate without all the name calling - carry on.......Butthole ;) |
thomasquinn 32989 22.08.2006 09:18 |
Haruko Aozora wrote: The Romans (and the ancient Greeks) were quite open with other religions than their... they borrowed a lot of gods from everywhere. THe problem with christianity was that it was too different and it was a possible danger...A) Neither actually adopted foreign deities into their own religion; they just ALLOWED other religions PROVIDING their practicioners would still comply to all the demands made by the state religion. So in fact, it would be something like the US allowing you to practice any religion you like, as long as you are a protestant as well. B) The problem with Christianity was that it refused to accept other religions. That's why they clashed with the authorities. Judaism had the same thing, but since they did not attempt to convert others, they were left alone (by the Romans, at least). |
eenaweena 22.08.2006 09:24 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:thanks for clearing that up for me! :D<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: lastly: All this racism thingies date back to the Roman Empire when Catholics/Christians-- you know what I mean. :)Way before that. The Romans were quite possibly the worst xenophobes that ever there were (not just Christians (there weren't any Catholics back then, they date back to 454 in its earliest form, and only in 1054 did they become a proto-Roman Catholic church, which differed from the (Eastern/Greek) Orthodox Church). The Romans hated everything that wasn't from Italia; it was so bad that the main reason why Octavian (later Emperor August, the first Roman Emperor) managed to win the support of the Roman people over his adversary Marc Anthony, was that he managed to convince them that Anthony was planning to change the capitol city of the empire from Rome to Alexandria). However, racism, discrimination and xenophobia were around in all early civilizations, from 'enlightened' ones like the ancient Greeks (Europe's first civilization) to those traditionally viewed as barbaric, such as the Germanic Peoples, and from Europe to South America. The one thing racism today proves, is that some people have had no benefit whatsoever of 3000 years of western culture, and roughly 6000 in the Middle East. |
Haruko Aozora 22.08.2006 09:48 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:hm...Haruko Aozora wrote: The Romans (and the ancient Greeks) were quite open with other religions than their... they borrowed a lot of gods from everywhere. THe problem with christianity was that it was too different and it was a possible danger...A) Neither actually adopted foreign deities into their own religion; they just ALLOWED other religions PROVIDING their practicioners would still comply to all the demands made by the state religion. So in fact, it would be something like the US allowing you to practice any religion you like, as long as you are a protestant as well. B) The problem with Christianity was that it refused to accept other religions. That's why they clashed with the authorities. Judaism had the same thing, but since they did not attempt to convert others, they were left alone (by the Romans, at least). A) Well they officially adopted deities from the Greeks (Zeus & co), Egiptians (what about the myth of Isis which was very popular in Roman times). Oh, and the greeks, they adopted Dyonissos (who some of you might know as Bacchus - the Roman version), and many many others... Cybele... just check the history of the greek/roman gods and you'll see. I agree with B) |
user name 22.08.2006 10:55 |
Haruko Aozora wrote:It doesn't seem, to me, at least, that a lot of the racism from the Romans had grounds in religion. I think it moreso stemmed from the grounds of, "We are so much better than everyone else because of our superior strength."<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:hm... A) Well they officially adopted deities from the Greeks (Zeus & co), Egiptians (what about the myth of Isis which was very popular in Roman times). Oh, and the greeks, they adopted Dyonissos (who some of you might know as Bacchus - the Roman version), and many many others... Cybele... just check the history of the greek/roman gods and you'll see. I agree with B)Haruko Aozora wrote: The Romans (and the ancient Greeks) were quite open with other religions than their... they borrowed a lot of gods from everywhere. THe problem with christianity was that it was too different and it was a possible danger...A) Neither actually adopted foreign deities into their own religion; they just ALLOWED other religions PROVIDING their practicioners would still comply to all the demands made by the state religion. So in fact, it would be something like the US allowing you to practice any religion you like, as long as you are a protestant as well. B) The problem with Christianity was that it refused to accept other religions. That's why they clashed with the authorities. Judaism had the same thing, but since they did not attempt to convert others, they were left alone (by the Romans, at least). |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.08.2006 13:35 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Why only see the ugly side of religion? I can only answer for me. I was raised roman catholic. In other words, I was raised to be afraid. I was raised to feel guilty for everything except praying. A child who falls asleep each night in tears while praying so hard for forgiveness of sins s/he might have committed that will get him/her thrown into the fiery depths of hell, grows into an angry, resentful adult. At least that's how it was in my case. Add to that trauma of childhood, current world events and doctrines, and you cannot help but see only the ugly side.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:What some people seem to have been ignoring here is that there are still a lot of people who do good deeds in the name of religion. Sure, there are tons of religious zealots who do nothing but spread hatred against anyone who doesn't share their same views. I can't deny the fact that religion has been used as a tool of fear and power, but why only see the ugly side of religion? What about all the charity organizations and people who based on their faith believe on helping others?Mr.Jingles wrote: It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance.It's a matter of control, and religion is the best way to control people. Their souls are at stake. Tell them they'll reach the promised land if only they... fill in the blank ...and they will. For salvation. If it means torturing people in the name of whatever God they happen to believe in, then that's what they'll do, that's what they've done (through the centuries) and that's what they'll continue to do. IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world. Faith-based charities don't attract me. Perhaps they're doing good deeds, perhaps they're spreading their warped and narrow beliefs. I neither know nor care because my experience with faith has been torturous. I do not support any faith-based charities and in fact go out of my way to make sure when I sponsor something it is in no way connected to any church or religion. I feel only fury when religion is discussed. Religion, IMO, cuckolds the human race. Destroys dreams and potential in the name of all that is holy. Fuck that. Why see only the ugly side of religion? Because, as history and current events prove, religion soils the world. |
deleted user 22.08.2006 14:56 |
I hate people that think all Muslims are Terrorists people who think like that should be locked up |
Haruko Aozora 22.08.2006 14:59 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:well their strength was based mostly on the army and the violence I'd say... more developed peoples who were far superior than the Greeks or the Romans perished due to that. Sadly... :-(Haruko Aozora wrote:It doesn't seem, to me, at least, that a lot of the racism from the Romans had grounds in religion. I think it moreso stemmed from the grounds of, "We are so much better than everyone else because of our superior strength."<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:hm... A) Well they officially adopted deities from the Greeks (Zeus & co), Egiptians (what about the myth of Isis which was very popular in Roman times). Oh, and the greeks, they adopted Dyonissos (who some of you might know as Bacchus - the Roman version), and many many others... Cybele... just check the history of the greek/roman gods and you'll see. I agree with B)Haruko Aozora wrote: The Romans (and the ancient Greeks) were quite open with other religions than their... they borrowed a lot of gods from everywhere. THe problem with christianity was that it was too different and it was a possible danger...A) Neither actually adopted foreign deities into their own religion; they just ALLOWED other religions PROVIDING their practicioners would still comply to all the demands made by the state religion. So in fact, it would be something like the US allowing you to practice any religion you like, as long as you are a protestant as well. B) The problem with Christianity was that it refused to accept other religions. That's why they clashed with the authorities. Judaism had the same thing, but since they did not attempt to convert others, they were left alone (by the Romans, at least). |
Mr.Jingles 22.08.2006 18:36 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I was raised Roman Catholic as well, and while I do understand why you've turned your back to any religion, it's not fair to single out anyone who follows a faith under the same category as fundamentalists, zealots and hypocrites.Mr.Jingles wrote:Why only see the ugly side of religion? I can only answer for me. I was raised roman catholic. In other words, I was raised to be afraid. I was raised to feel guilty for everything except praying. A child who falls asleep each night in tears while praying so hard for forgiveness of sins s/he might have committed that will get him/her thrown into the fiery depths of hell, grows into an angry, resentful adult. At least that's how it was in my case. Add to that trauma of childhood, current world events and doctrines, and you cannot help but see only the ugly side. Faith-based charities don't attract me. Perhaps they're doing good deeds, perhaps they're spreading their warped and narrow beliefs. I neither know nor care because my experience with faith has been torturous. I do not support any faith-based charities and in fact go out of my way to make sure when I sponsor something it is in no way connected to any church or religion. I feel only fury when religion is discussed. Religion, IMO, cuckolds the human race. Destroys dreams and potential in the name of all that is holy. Fuck that. Why see only the ugly side of religion? Because, as history and current events prove, religion soils the world.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:What some people seem to have been ignoring here is that there are still a lot of people who do good deeds in the name of religion. Sure, there are tons of religious zealots who do nothing but spread hatred against anyone who doesn't share their same views. I can't deny the fact that religion has been used as a tool of fear and power, but why only see the ugly side of religion? What about all the charity organizations and people who based on their faith believe on helping others?Mr.Jingles wrote: It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance.It's a matter of control, and religion is the best way to control people. Their souls are at stake. Tell them they'll reach the promised land if only they... fill in the blank ...and they will. For salvation. If it means torturing people in the name of whatever God they happen to believe in, then that's what they'll do, that's what they've done (through the centuries) and that's what they'll continue to do. IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world. I consider myself a christian, and I don't follow any religious institution in particular. Many of my friends happen to be agnostic or atheist. Yet, I don't go around telling them what to believe in, and neither they do criticize what I believe in. All I know is that they're kind people who believe that we were put into this world to help each other, to understand, to be compassionate, and forgiving. Little does it matter whether they think Jesus is the son of God or not. Never once I thought that they should become christian in order to save their souls and go to heaven (if there's such thing). I know I'm not the only christian who accepts and embraces those who think different. My grandma for instance is very devout Catholic, and while we disagree on certain things, there's more in common than what we think. As an old lady In the end, there's no difference between whether someone is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist, or Agnostic. As corny as this might sound, all that matter is what's on everyone's heart. Please don't misjudge everyone who chooses to have a faith. I suggest you get to know people better because not everyone who follows some sort of religion is as close |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.08.2006 19:05 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: In the end, there's no difference between whether someone is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist, or Agnostic. As corny as this might sound, all that matter is what's on everyone's heart. Please don't misjudge everyone who chooses to have a faith. I suggest you get to know people better because not everyone who follows some sort of religion is as close minded as you think they are.Please understand, I don't automatically judge believers. If someone's faith gives them strength in times of need, then more power to them. I know there are extremists/purists in everything and I don't feel someone who goes to church every Sunday is one of them. But I do feel religion has caused more grief and terror than any other ONE thing throughout history. AND someone who feels the need to beat me with their preaching is someone who will indeed be beaten back. Regarding your comment about what matters is what's in a person's heart... that is something I absolutely agree with. That's what we've taught our daughter. I will not allow her to go to bed at night afraid of an afterlife punishment for having had an angry thought during the day. Instead, she's been taught to consider the opinions and feelings of others in her everyday interactions. I guess if we have any 'faith', it's in The Golden Rule. So no, I don't sneer at or insult someone of a faith simply because they're believers, and I know not all are closed-minded. But when I hear of war or threats or fighting in the name of god, I can't help but roll my eyes in utter disgust - for them, for their religion and for their 'god'. |
AspiringPhilosophe 22.08.2006 19:33 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Good for you! I get what both of you are saying here, really I do. Mr. Jingles has a point...not all religious people or people who have faith are close minded bigots. But I also get what MagicalFreddieMercury is saying. Especially on this college campus, you get so many of the religious bigots. We've actually got a guy, nicknamed "Preacher Rick" who stands in the middle of campus and screams at people as they walk by about how we are all going to hell unless we believe just like he does. (I've actually had some friends get into theological debates with him, and it's entertaining to watch him trip up over the hypocrises there) Personally, I'm not really religious either. I started seeing the hypocracies pretty early, and decided that I couldn't stick to any religion that said that a certain group was destined to go to hell (non-believers, homosexuals, etc) while at the same time professing "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I decided I was just going to try and do that, not judge, and to heck with the rest of the crap. Plus, I don't think one can really be a historian and see what religion has done in the past and still maintain faith.Mr.Jingles wrote: In the end, there's no difference between whether someone is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Atheist, or Agnostic. As corny as this might sound, all that matter is what's on everyone's heart. Please don't misjudge everyone who chooses to have a faith. I suggest you get to know people better because not everyone who follows some sort of religion is as close minded as you think they are.Please understand, I don't automatically judge believers. If someone's faith gives them strength in times of need, then more power to them. I know there are extremists/purists in everything and I don't feel someone who goes to church every Sunday is one of them. But I do feel religion has caused more grief and terror than any other ONE thing throughout history. AND someone who feels the need to beat me with their preaching is someone who will indeed be beaten back. Regarding your comment about what matters is what's in a person's heart... that is something I absolutely agree with. That's what we've taught our daughter. I will not allow her to go to bed at night afraid of an afterlife punishment for having had an angry thought during the day. Instead, she's been taught to consider the opinions and feelings of others in her everyday interactions. I guess if we have any 'faith', it's in The Golden Rule. So no, I don't sneer at or insult someone of a faith simply because they're believers, and I know not all are closed-minded. But when I hear of war or threats or fighting in the name of god, I can't help but roll my eyes in utter disgust - for them, for their religion and for their 'god'. I also roll my eyes and those who hijack faith in the name of whoever, and use it as an excuse to murder. If there is a hell, those are the people who wind up there I'm sure. Unfortunately, humans have changed very little in the last millenia, and I don't think we can get rid of those people. |
Mr.Jingles 22.08.2006 21:37 |
The good thing about religious hypocrites is that the shit they spew out of their mouths is ridiculously funny. I'm starting to think that 'The 700 Club' is a funnier show than 'The Daily Show'... (Sorry, Jon Stewart). Btw, your posts are always great, Maggie. Keep it up! |
user name 22.08.2006 21:59 |
Reflecting back on things, in the Church I had gone to for the greater part of my life, which is a Roman Catholic Church, I am proud to say that I have never once heard homosexuals being denounced or unwelcome in the community; it was not stressed that non-believers will go to Hell (only the positive was stressed - that good deeds and a belief in Jesus Christ will grant you an eternity in Heaven); everyone was welcome in the Church regardless of faith, and it was hardly (if at all) recognized. The Church existed as a community first, and a religion second. I think that this is the kind of Christianity that is currently growing and becoming prevalent in the United States and everywhere (I admit, probably moreso in the Blue states - I am from a Blue state - than in the Reds). It may not be obvious, and it won't ever get any media attention, but I think that this is how things are in a lot of Christian Churches and households, and the numbers must be growing. However, this still didn't stop me from hating going to Church, which, forgive me for saying this, I thought was a waste of time. And super boring. Especially Sunday school (CCD as we knew it). It was kind of like when I tried out football. It was just boring and I couldn't be bothered. So that's how I became agnostic. Apathy. |
Mr.Jingles 22.08.2006 22:25 |
I used to go to Sunday School because I had a crush on a girl who used to go there. That was when I was a pre-teen and my hormones started kicking. But can God blame me? He's the one who made us horny. |
That guy who digs energy domes 22.08.2006 22:38 |
Hey, being a Lutheran got me $4 a month car insurance Thats God showing he loves us |
AspiringPhilosophe 23.08.2006 00:44 |
Thanks for the compliment, Dan! :-) Someone mentioned going to a Catholic Church that was all positive...that's excellent. But not all Catholic Churches are that way. Not all Churches of any denomination are that way. I decided a long time ago that if being a "Good Christian" meant that I had to become a homophobic, sexist bigot then I wasn't interested. I haven't gone to church in 2 years (not even for Christmas service....advantage to working night shift), but I remember going when I was younger. Like Dan, I remember going just because I had a crush on a guy two grades above me in school who also went to the church. He stopped going....I pretty quickly lost interest. **smirks** |
The Real Wizard 23.08.2006 01:10 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: In a way, I'm like Death: everybody knows I'm coming, but no one knows when, and they aren't exactly eager for me to drop by either!Hahaha... brilliant! |
user name 23.08.2006 17:04 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thanks for the compliment, Dan! :-) Someone mentioned going to a Catholic Church that was all positive...that's excellent. But not all Catholic Churches are that way. Not all Churches of any denomination are that way. I decided a long time ago that if being a "Good Christian" meant that I had to become a homophobic, sexist bigot then I wasn't interested. I haven't gone to church in 2 years (not even for Christmas service....advantage to working night shift), but I remember going when I was younger. Like Dan, I remember going just because I had a crush on a guy two grades above me in school who also went to the church. He stopped going....I pretty quickly lost interest. **smirks**I was simply pointing out that most Churches are like that, and it is of growing prevalence. I don't EVER recall a priest promoting homophobia, sexism, or bigotry in any Church I have ever been in (given, I haven't been in too many!). I have only ever heard the exact opposite. But, when you say not all Catholic Churches are that way...that's true. Not all chess clubs endorse good chess strategy...not all student councils promote student government...not all colleges teach their students well...there's no such thing as perfection all across the board. |
Micrówave 23.08.2006 18:44 |
The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Hey, being a Lutheran got me $4 a month car insuranceAnybody willing to convert me to Lutheranism? Yeah, good ol' Martin Luther. What a guy. I haven't had any wrecks or tickets in the last three years either. |
AspiringPhilosophe 23.08.2006 19:02 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Indeed there is not. There is no such thing as perfection across the board. Basically, everyone just needs to look at everything as it comes. Your experience with the Church has been different from mine, and that's fine. They are both our experiences, and neither is more valid than the other.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Thanks for the compliment, Dan! :-) Someone mentioned going to a Catholic Church that was all positive...that's excellent. But not all Catholic Churches are that way. Not all Churches of any denomination are that way. I decided a long time ago that if being a "Good Christian" meant that I had to become a homophobic, sexist bigot then I wasn't interested. I haven't gone to church in 2 years (not even for Christmas service....advantage to working night shift), but I remember going when I was younger. Like Dan, I remember going just because I had a crush on a guy two grades above me in school who also went to the church. He stopped going....I pretty quickly lost interest. **smirks**I was simply pointing out that most Churches are like that, and it is of growing prevalence. I don't EVER recall a priest promoting homophobia, sexism, or bigotry in any Church I have ever been in (given, I haven't been in too many!). I have only ever heard the exact opposite. But, when you say not all Catholic Churches are that way...that's true. Not all chess clubs endorse good chess strategy...not all student councils promote student government...not all colleges teach their students well...there's no such thing as perfection all across the board. |
That guy who digs energy domes 23.08.2006 21:14 |
Mircrowave! wrote:He, much like Giecko blesses people who convert to him with cheap car insuranceThe Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Hey, being a Lutheran got me $4 a month car insuranceAnybody willing to convert me to Lutheranism? Yeah, good ol' Martin Luther. What a guy. I haven't had any wrecks or tickets in the last three years either. |
That guy who digs energy domes 23.08.2006 22:58 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Thank you. I will be off again tomorrow though. My visits here will be rather infrequent the coming time, and probably never expected. In a way, I'm like Death: everybody knows I'm coming, but no one knows when, and they aren't exactly eager for me to drop by either!That sounds more like herpes |