Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

@failures art,

Look ART, I really have no idea what your point is as your argument is incoherent.

You seem to want to count up all the corpses with an "M" on their forehead and those with a "C" and suggest that because the former may be more numerous than the latter, that you have proven something profound.

In reality you have no idea as to how many of the American, Coalition and NATO soldiers that have killed practicing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya are practicing Christians, let alone Christian extremists.

Here is my point:

The scope of the threat to America from extremist Muslims is far greater than the scope of the threat from extremist Christians.

I will add to it a second point:

The scope of the threat to the world from extremist Muslims is far greater that the scope of the threat from extremists Christians, extremist Buddhists, extremists Jews, extremist Jains, extremist Taoists, etc. etc. etc.

You’ll notice neither point involves which is the superior religion, or any contention that practicing Muslims, in general, are evil. You throw up the straw man argument defense quite a lot, but fail to recognize when you are advancing one.

If you’d like a third point which might satisfy your liberal reflexive urges, here’s one:

Western culture is superior to what amounts to the Arab/Persian/Muslim variety.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The scope of the threat to America from extremist Muslims is far greater than the scope of the threat from extremist Christians.

This is clearly untrue. Christians in the US are using terrorism to limit access to abortion-- and they are being effective. Muslim terrorism in the US hasn't had any success in meeting their objectives.

Extremist Christians are behind the most repressive parts of American society both politically and socially. In Muslim dominated countries Muslims have the ability to disrupt government. In the US where Christianity is the dominant religion, it is Christians extremist groups with real plots to overthrow the government.

There is no real threat from Muslims other than external acts of terror that will kill people but have no real ability to reach any political goal. I really don't know what you imagine that Muslims can do.

There is a real threat from Christians who work inside the country and have the ability to cause real problems.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Western culture is superior to what amounts to the Arab/Persian/Muslim variety.

If there is any superiority to Western culture, is that we have distanced our politics from religion. There is a strong urge in Western cultures to reject religion-based politics.

The countries that have the most repressive society are the ones where religion has power. This is true for Christian countries like Uganda and Rwanda as well as Muslim countries like Iran and Syria. There are moderate democracies with majority Muslim populations.

The key for US to continue as a successful democracy is to keep our religious extremists (in our case mostly Christian) in check.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Look ART, I really have no idea what your point is as your argument is incoherent.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You seem to want to count up all the corpses with an "M" on their forehead and those with a "C" and suggest that because the former may be more numerous than the latter, that you have proven something profound.

Not quite, but close. I'm saying that (and this will be at least the third time I'll type this) if you're a christian, the chances you'll be killed by a Muslim is less than if you're a Muslim with the chances of being killed by a Christian. The point is NOT about body counts with C's and M's, but rather that you're views on what constitutes a greater threat are biased based on your localized views, not on the actual origin of human suffering.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In reality you have no idea as to how many of the American, Coalition and NATO soldiers that have killed practicing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya are practicing Christians, let alone Christian extremists.

Call it a hunch. You don't actually disagree, but you'd be pleased to get me to jump the hoops to prove to you what you already know. I'm not biting.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Here is my point:

The scope of the threat to America from extremist Muslims is far greater than the scope of the threat from extremist Christians.

You don't have to convince me that people from both groups wish to institute theological rule over me. Convince me that Islam is a greater threat given that Christians are actively doing this and succeeding.

Where in the USA are the American Muslims destroying the secular institution of government? If the only Muslims that are a threat are elsewhere in the world, then the threat from those people is not inherent to their muslim-ness.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I will add to it a second point:

The scope of the threat to the world from extremist Muslims is far greater that the scope of the threat from extremists Christians, extremist Buddhists, extremists Jews, extremist Jains, extremist Taoists, etc. etc. etc.

Sounds like it won't take much effort to convince you that the US might need to blow up some Buddhists, Jews, Jains, or Taoists. You already employ an under-siege defensive language, so it's not that hard to poke at your fears. Poke at them regardless of any real threat existing.

I'm guessing the Buddhists, Jews, Jains, and Taoists are relieved they aren't sitting on any oil given there are a dime a dozen reactionaries like yourself out there.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You’ll notice neither point involves which is the superior religion, or any contention that practicing Muslims, in general, are evil. You throw up the straw man argument defense quite a lot, but fail to recognize when you are advancing one.

I don't think any are superior either. They are all equally unfounded. Evil is also not an evaluation of what someone believes, but what they do.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If you’d like a third point which might satisfy your liberal reflexive urges, here’s one:

Western culture is superior to what amounts to the Arab/Persian/Muslim variety.

What are you thinking of when you say "western culture?" I imagine you're thinking of a democracy like ours (ideally speaking). To that I'd actually agree. That's not really a contentious notion.

However, those other places (they are icky now aren't they?), do you remember how they got that way? It was largely the fault of those noble western civilizations in their imperialistic glory that simply trampled them... in the name of the Christian god (if you forgot). It also didn't help that the West and the USSR fought proxy wars on their soil either.

Take even the most extreme example: Iran.

The USA helped advance a coup d' tat to oust a democratically elected leader to put in the Shaw. That was four our benefit, not theirs, and they suffered for it. So yeah, I suppose the west is pretty great, when it's not undermining democracy; the thing that makes it so great (on paper).

Perhaps it's important to you to feel superior to these people, but I think it's something else. I think all of this crap you spew is your means to diminish your own empathy for these people. It's the sort of the-bring-it-on-themselves kind of justification that is maintained with warm feelings and patriotic notions.

Star-spangled sociopathy.

A
R
There is nothing superior about diminished empathy.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This is clearly untrue. Christians in the US are using terrorism to limit access to abortion-- and they are being effective. Muslim terrorism in the US hasn't had any success in meeting their objectives.

The claim usually is:

Quote:

God in heaven, these ****ing lunatic republicans are gonna force me to have five kids!!!!!

Aside from the real-world unlikelihood of that, the real answer is that, for what the dems are going to cost you, you could AFFORD five kids.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Hey fa--why didn't you answer my post?

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

There is nothing superior about diminished empathy.

I don't agree with that either.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Christians are successfully using terrorism in the US to limit access to abortion?

This has to be one of the most ludicrous statements I've seen posted in this forum.

According to the CDC, since 1973 there have been approx 50 million abortions in the US. That's an average of 1.35 million abortions a year, and clearly the rate increased over the years following 1973.

How many abortions do you think Christian extremists have prevented?

According to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), violence directed at abortion clinics and doctors since 1977 has resulted in

8 murders: 4 Doctors, 2 Clinic Employees, 1 Security Guard and 1 Clinic Escort

17 attempted murders

383 Death threats

153 incidents of assault and battery

3 kidnappings

Let's liberally assume that each incident resulted in 1,000 less abortions than might otherwise have been conducted.

The totality of this anti-abortion violence would have resulted in about 1% fewer abortions.

Assuming all of these violent acts were perpetrated by Christian extremists, we would have to say they have had a pretty pathetic success rate.

The notion that "Christian terrorism" has had a measurable impact, let alone a significant or successful impact, on the US abortion rate is utter nonsense.

Let's include the KKK among Christian extremists: It's hard to find an agreed upon number of deaths caused by the KKK, but from what I have read the number is around 2,000 since the creation of the Klan in 1865. 1500 hundred of these deaths are thought to have occurred between 1865 and 1877.

Since we are comparing the scope of the threats of "current" extremism, let's start our period of currency at 1990.

If the KKK was responsible for 100 deaths since 1990, that is a stretch, but let's use it.

The horrific Oklahoma City bombing resulted in 168 deaths. I would argue that McVeigh was not a Christian extremist, but let's, for the sake of discussion, assume he was and count his crime in the tally.

Eric Rudolph was clearly a Christian Terrorist and his crimes resulted in 2 deaths.

Add the 8 NAF cited numbers (that begin in the 70's) to the toll and we have a total of 278 deaths

That is less than 10% of the number of deaths resulting from a single Islamist terrorist act: 9/11.

From a standpoint of what most people consider a meaningful threat (injury and death), Muslim extremists clearly constitute a greater threat to Americans than their Christian counterparts.

But you argument seems to be that Islamists can only kill and maim us while Christian extremists can rob us of our freedoms.

Any consideration of what has transpired in the last twenty to thirty years will indicate this is an absurd claim.

Abortions are full steam ahead in the USA. The rate may have dropped a bit in the last couple of years, but this is an indicator of terrorism?

Legalized same sex marriage is making steady gains.

Prayer in school has been abolished and the 9th Circuit ruled that because God is mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance, that the Pledge could not be mandated.

The ratio of "Happy Holiday" to "Merry Christmas" cards is about 8:1 in any chain store in America.

Creationist "victories" have been few and far between.

The examples go on and on.

In this thread, I make no value judgment on these trends. They are what they are.

What they are though is proof positive that the Christian Extremist bogeyman is utter nonsense.

Now, since you reject a comparison of body count, let's turn to a more subtle interpretation of effectiveness.

Lately there was a controversy about a Canadian production wherein Pamela Anderson portrayed the Virgin Mary and was profane in her scripted lines.

I will accept your argument when Pam and her other friends go on TV to portray in the same way the story of Mohammed.

Of course they will not, because they are afraid that lunatic Islamists will kill them.

Salman Rushdie has had to fear for his life since 1989 because of an Islamist fatwa ordering the Ummah to kill him because he wrote "The Satanic Verses."

Has Andres Serrano (The creator of the "Piss Christ") or Chris Ofili (The creator of a montage titled "Madonna;" incorporating elephant dung) been on the run since their "art" premiered? Do they have to move their location frequently and hire bodyguards?

Bill Maher produced an anti-Christian film and is free to visit his local Starbucks on a daily basis, and cast all sorts of sexist insults against conservative women.

Theo Van Gogh produced an anti-Muslim film and was shot 8 times by a Muslim extremist who tried to cut Van Gogh's head off and left two knives in his body; to one which was attached a 5 page note that threatened Western countries, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who, herself, had to go into hiding thereafter).

To paraphrase The Mahdi (Olivier style):

Whisper in my ear Max Pasha, who are the extremists?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn,

There is one place to get an abortion out of the entire state of Mississippi. There is one place in North Dakota and one place in South Dakota. There are constant death threats against doctors. In addition to the murders, there are bomb threats, acid attacks and stalking.

Don't pretend it doesn't work. Of course it does. If people were doing this to get rid of your profession, you would strongly consider another line of work. The violence not only raises costs of everything from insurance to security, it also limits the number of people who are willing to provide this legal service (and related health related services).

Terrorism, by making it much harder to provide services and making young doctors feel at risk, is dramatically limiting access to abortion across many states in the South and Midwest.

Again the goal of these acts of violence are to limit access to abortion in large areas of the country. The goal is to hound doctors and threaten clinic in targeted areas to make abortions inaccessible to women living there. This effort has been demonstrably effective as doctors have stopped offering the service due to threats on themselves and their families and clinic have been closed due to vandalism and security cost. There are wide areas of the US where there is no abortion services within 100 miles of the women living there.

Some people may think this is a good thing-- but there is no question that the means of accomplishing this through violence and threats is terrorism.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

What needs to be done maxdan is to persuade these people that abortion is not evil.

I presume you are up for extreme methods to prevent evil so if they believe abortion to be evil then their methods are justified. For their opponents it is just business.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Do you have any evidence to support you claim that there are less abortions in US due to terrorism? Any reports from clinics or Dr's saying they were leaving the business due to increased costs in security because of terrorism?

Last I checked there were states having votes to limit access to abortion clinics and the types of abortions. Most of these have been unsuccessful. This also includes votes in states to change "person hood" to include a fetus and you know what all of them have failed. Not a single state has changed their person hood status to claim that a fetus is a person.

It would be interesting to see you actually address Finns comments instead of continuing with what appear to be lame talking points with no information to backup your claims.

0 Replies

There is also the topic of bullying. In one state a law that was to be passed to protect LGBT youth was amended in such a way that the law itself outlines how to legally bully someone.

Wanna guess how? Use religion as an shield! Wanna guess which religion was active in getting the amendment in?

A
R
Three guesses, but you should only need one

1 Reply

@failures art,

Care to post a story on this one fa?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Care to post a story on this one fa?

Sure.

Washington Post wrote:

Michigan anti-bullying law protects religious bullies
By Brad Hirschfield | 07:58 PM ET, 11/06/2011

After long debates and tortuous negotiations, the state of Michigan passed anti-bullying legislation, which on the face of it, should be a good thing. Unfortunately, Michigan has managed to pass a law which, despite bearing a name designed to honor the memory of a victim of bullying, may actually provide legal cover to the worst of the bullies.

The law, Matt’s Safe School Law, named in memory of Matt Epling, who committed suicide in the wake of relentless anti-gay bullying, offers a loophole to those who want to bully gay students or anyone else they don’t like. All they need to do, according to the newly passed legislation, is claim that their bullying was based on “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.”

Although not mentioned specifically, all those who bully gay people might need to do to avoid prosecution under the new law is quote Leviticus 20:13 which condemns to death those who practice at least some kinds of homosexual sex. But this is not simply about gay people, lest anyone think that is not sufficiently problematic.

Alternatively, one who bullies Jews might escape accountability under “Matt’s Law” by simply invoking the words of another Matthew -- the Gospel author. He reports that Jews in the time of Jesus declared (Matt. 27:25), “His (Jesus’) blood be upon us and upon our children.” Presumably, one could claim that bullying Jews is nothing more than the bully’s attempt to live out the implications of these nearly 2,000 year old words.

While certainly not the only ways to understand those verses, either Leviticus or Matthew, the new law opens the door to those who would invoke them as sources in which to ground their harassment of others. Of course, one might argue that the passage of any legislation which addresses the growing problem of bullying in American schools is a victory, if only partial, and therefore worthy of celebration. They would be wrong.

In fact, the passage of this legislation may well set back the cause of protecting kids from their tormentors by moving the focus of attention from the damage bullies do, to legal wrangling about the religious and moral basis of their bullying. Instead of addressing the damage done by bullies and legislating against it, this law incentivizes debate about bullies’ intent and how they “justify” their actions against those they hate.

Ironically, it is precisely those who are often most opposed to hate crimes legislation because they focus on the criminal’s state of mind rather than upon the crime they commit, who supported a similar approach in the case of “Matt’s Law.” So while the passage of this law represents the triumph of form over substance by all, it is particularly hypocritical for those who demanded the exception for “bible-based bigotry” and “hate-driven morality.”

Classically, it is social and political conservatives who argue against hate crimes legislation that punish a crime more severely because it’s victim is a member of a hated group e.g. gays, lesbians, racial, ethnic or religious minorities, etc. Frankly, I generally share that concern, believing that it is the criminal acts, and neither the intent of the criminal nor the wider social implications of their particular crime, which should be punished. That is yet another reason why I oppose the ridiculous loophole in Michigan’s new law, and why those who supported it should as well.

If it is acts, not intentions, that the law is meant to punish, then what possible room is there for an exception for deeply held religious beliefs or moral convictions? Are those who developed this law arguing that some forms of hatred deserve protection?

Without judging the intentions of those who passed this law, now is the time to insist that the problems with it, the inconsistencies in the thinking of those who support it, and the serious problems which it may create for the very victims it aims to protect, all be addressed. Ignoring these challenges may put the blood of the next generation of victims on those who fail to do so. How ironic. How tragic.

source

More:

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

That's a bit fanciful fa. Non sequiturs and anachronisms abound.

0 Replies

From Mississippi:

Huffington Post wrote:

Home Invasion Suspects Are Part Of 'The Savior Unit,' Mississippi Paramilitary Group: Cops

Police investigating a Mississippi home invasion have broken up what they say is a paramilitary group that trained its members in "hand to hand combat skills, paramilitary training and scriptures."

Officers with the Gautier Police department were already familiar with the self-styled vigilante group, dubbed "The Savior Unit" or "Tactical Search Unit," when they took a call about a home invasion and kidnapping on Dec. 6.

Minutes after receiving the alert, police apprehended the group's alleged "commander," 32-year-old Michael Shaun Schaffran, and its "captain," 18-year-old Cody Jacob Rogers. The pair are accused of kicking in the door of a residence while wearing bullet-proof vests and military clothing, dragging out three victims including a 70-year-old man, and assaulting them, according to police press release published on the department's Facebook page.

Shaffran and Rogers were each hit with three charges of kidnapping and burglary of an occupied residence.

Officers became aware of "The Savior Unit" as they investigated a recent surge in burglaries in south Gautier, though the group has not been formally linked to the crimes, police told The Sun Herald.

The two suspects are believed to have lead a group of four teens. They allegedly trained them in combat skills and religion in a wooded area for the past six weeks.

An operation manual recovered by police describes the group as more of a community service organization than a criminal organization, at least according to an excerpt published by The Mississippi Press:

T.S.U. is a tactical search team that is faith based. Our purpose is to promote Christ. Obtain offenders who are a danger to society, do community service work for churches and halfway houses, and do security for different functions. Our training is a recon and infiltration, apprehension and retrieval. All team members are taught hand to hand combat skills, para military training and scriptures. [SIC]

Local investigators have reportedly contacted the FBI to determine whether the group is a larger threat.

"You can use your imagination and speculate where was this headed, what could have happened, what might have happened," Gautier Police Captain Kenny McMellon told The Mississippi Press.

But Schaffran's wife, Tisha Schaffran, told The Hattiesburg American that her husband was merely helping neighborhood youth.

"He's not this monster they're making him out to be," she told the paper.

Tisha Schaffran says her husband -- who has previous convictions for theft, aggravated assault and forgery-- might have entered the residence. But he wouldn't have gone there to harm anyone.

"It's just a bunch of kids, mostly," she said. "It was just to get together and give them something to do other than get in trouble. They would have exercises out in the yard in the woods on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Sometimes they go out into the woods. It might have been military style, but it wasn't like they were trying to be the military or the police, either."

source

More here: link

So they're crazy right? I'm sure there is a long line of people ready to step up and tell everyone how these people don't represent Christians. You know what? I agree. What the problem is with this kind off thing is that had the group been Muslims, the narrative would not have been the same. This kind of thing showcases how religious threats are brushed off if they are Christian, and yet compared to a non-threat like Park51 in NYC, the public feels they have a say on how others may live.

In more of a recent story, we have the current affair of the television show American Muslim and Christian groups pressuring Lowes to pull advertising from the show. The show's controversy; it's offense? Existing.

This is the state of affairs in the USA. Only Judeo-Christian normatives are to be accepted, and any attempt for other groups to find a place in the public square is to be treated as a threat and a challenge to Christian rights.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

It might be just another example of that anthropological tradition where a people is content to sit within it sea or mountain ringed fastness titivating themselves with tales of departed grandeur and struggling for rank and high-sounding titles until doom overtakes them.

0 Replies

Egypt should ready itself for a full dose of Sharia law.

Short-lived Shibboleth of a Moderate Egypt
Islamists' election victory leaves Western predictions in shambles

By Tony Blankley, The Washington Times, December 5, 2011

[Editor's Note: A shibboleth is a belief usually regarded by others as false or empty of real meaning.]

One of the nice things about human history is that no matter how much people or their leaders misjudge events and make a hash of things, within a few centuries, the debris is cleared away and we can have a another go at getting things right.

Yes, I am thinking about the Middle East and the latest mix-up by the experts—their assessment just a few months ago of the nature of the Arab Spring and its democracy movement. Back in the spring, leading experts—from the Obama administration to the neoconservatives on the right to the major liberal media to most of the academic area specialists—were overwhelmingly predicting that all those great secular, liberal, college-educated kids with their iPhones in Tahrir Square represented the new Egypt and would bring all their wonderful values to the revolution. It was primarily us cranky right-wingers who have been writing about radical Islamic politics (and, of course, the Israelis, who can't afford to get it wrong on Muslim political habits) who warned that this was all going to end in the rise in still-ancient Egypt of radical Islamist, anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti American, anti-Western governance.

So our government—as I said, cheered on by neoconservatives as well as liberals—undercut Hosni Mubarak's regime and told us not to worry about the Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood was a group of really old, tired men who were no longer really radical and had been propped up just to provide the regime with an opposition punching bag. Armed with their social-media devices, the kids would run rings around the sorry excuse for Islamists and deliver real democracy.

Hadn't any of those experts been to Egypt? There are not a lot of secular liberals hanging out—even at the universities—let alone in the thousands of villages and urban slums. Who the heck did the experts think those angry, bearded men were who were roaming around glaring at Westerners and Muslim women who dared to walk on the street? I saw them back in the 1960s and '70s, and they were scary even then. By the way, as I recall, Tahrir Square was pretty much a circle. But who's counting when you are having deranged, liberal fantasies? Even if these experts on Sunday political round-table chatters had not been to Egypt, perhaps it was a clue that a Pew poll in the spring said 65 percent of the public would vote Islamist.

The early returns are in. (There are still two more rounds of voting in 18 of the country's 27 provinces over the next month.) The Islamists look likely to get 65 percent 70 percent of the eventual vote. According to the High Election Commission, the Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party got about 36 percent, while the Salafist Nour Party got a stunning 25 percent. The Salafists are the hysterical wing of the fundamentally reactionary general Muslim population, while the Brotherhood is merely the fanatical wing.

The grand total for all the parties that, by the ancient cultural standards of Pharaonic Egypt, are considered the liberal-secular bloc—the makers of the glorious Arab Spring democracy was, wait for it—13 percent. I predict that if any of them try to practice any of that liberal-secular stuff in public, either the military eventually will lock them up or the Salafists eventually will beat them up or kill them on the street. Adios, liberal-secular Egypt, we hardly new ya. Hello, kill the Coptic Christians and the Jews.

Of course, the various ever-bewildered wire services and newspapers are reporting the "unpredicted," "unexpected" size of the Islamist vote while taking to calling the Brotherhood, in its 2.0 form, "moderate." But anyway, not to worry. As our brother in journalism Jackson Diehl wrote in this weekend's Washington Post, he has talked with various former terrorists and Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, and he assures us that "the ascendancy of parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood should not be as alarming as many in the West suppose. ... The biggest reason for this is that the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the more fundamentalist parties to its right, has renounced violence."

Well, that's a relief. I suppose the Brotherhood also has no more territorial demands. Oh, wait a moment. Mr. Diehl notes that the Brotherhood's platform does say that Egypt should "aid and support the Palestinian people and Palestinian resistance against the Zionist usurpers of their homeland." So, I guess, after they kill all the Jews, they will stop practicing violence. Of course, even then there will be the little matter of the Brotherhood's credo: "God is our objective; the Koran is our constitution; the prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations." But it's OK. That is the moderate wing of the upcoming Egyptian parliament.

Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know