QueenZone discussion #856017

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.

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.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

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.

DudleyFufkin wrote: Die muslims Die.

DudleyFufkin wrote: yea, and look what happened to israel, they just bombed lebanon.

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.

<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!

great king rat 1138 wrote:

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?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't consider these 'leaders' competent, I consider them damn lucky.

<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!!!

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.

<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?

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<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.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<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.

<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!

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 H

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<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.

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.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<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.

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.

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.

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?????

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.

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.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

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.

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.

<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.

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 1941

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

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 1941

War is much more than a legal term, I'll have you know.

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

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 1941

War is much more than a legal term, I'll have you know.

It is not a war until Congress declares it a war

Haystacks Calhounski wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: (One could argue that as long as there is religion, there will be bickering everywhere).

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

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.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

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.

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.

<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.

Mr.Jingles wrote: It's not a matter of religion... it's matter of tolerance and acceptance.

<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?

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.

great king rat 1138 wrote:

<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.

<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?

magicalfreddiemercury 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.... 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.

<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.

<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?

<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote:

great king rat 1138 wrote:

<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.

Bush is the leader of a nation, a president. It's not what I meant.

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.

Zeni wrote:

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?

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Zeni wrote:

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?

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.

<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But still, are all these Christian fanatic organizations illegal?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: But still, are all these Christian fanatic organizations illegal?

Yes.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<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:

<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote:

great king rat 1138 wrote:

<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.

Bush is the leader of a nation, a president. It's not what I meant.

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.

Zeni wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Zeni wrote:

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?

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.

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.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Zeni wrote:

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?

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: 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.

Zeni wrote:

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.

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.

<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?

<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?

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.

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.

Zeni wrote: just because a person watches the 700 Club doesn't mean they agree with everything Pat Robertson says, for example.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Their views of the world are just forming, and they soak everything in.

Zeni wrote: I understand your point, but that comment sounds an awful lot like the conservative argument for more censorship.

I can certainly think of more examples where it was middle-age folks who caused the problems, and not young fanatics.

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]

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<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.

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.

<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: Still doesn't really answer my question.

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.

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.

Zeni wrote:

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.

<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?

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.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Zeni wrote:

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.

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:

<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.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<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 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:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<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 terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.

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.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<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 terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: OK Zeni. You wanted a proper citation for Falwell promoting the slaughter of Muslims, and here it is:

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.

Zeni wrote:

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.

Zeni wrote:

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.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<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 terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.

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:

Zeni wrote:

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.

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).

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<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 terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.

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.

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."

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<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 terrorism you described is hardly on the same level of the fundamentalist Muslim terrorism we hear about almost every day.

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.

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."

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.
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

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Zeni wrote:

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.

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).

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.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Zeni wrote:

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

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.

<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.

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. IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world.

<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. :)

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<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!

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<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!

Good one MusicMan!!

<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<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!

Good one MusicMan!!

oh right. it dates back to the egytians. but i don't remember learning that the australopithecines showed any racism...

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<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!

Good one MusicMan!!

oh right. it dates back to the egytians. but i don't remember learning that the australopithecines showed any racism...

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. :-)

<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. :)

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

<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.

Bob The Shrek wrote: It's nice to see a debate without all the name calling - carry on.......

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...

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

<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.

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

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).

Haruko Aozora wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

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).

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)

Mr.Jingles wrote:

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. IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world.

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?

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Haruko Aozora wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:

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).

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)

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."

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

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. IMO, religion - and how some in power manipulate it - is the greatest hatemonger in the world.

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?

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.

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.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

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'.

<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!

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**

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Hey, being a Lutheran got me $4 a month car insurance

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

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.

Mircrowave! wrote:

The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote: Hey, being a Lutheran got me $4 a month car insurance

Anybody 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.

<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!