The Myth of Religious Persecution

The dead kitty, Bernard, is indulging the sort of slow burn leading to uncontrolable rage which will get him banned, once again. He's not worth the time and effort to engage.

0 Replies

Mentioning the battle of Vienna reminded me of my visit to the delightful city of Tours and the battle there, which according to Wikipedia (what an excellent institution that is btw ?)

Quote:

The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 10, 732 between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and a massive invading Muslim army led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman, near the city of Tours, France. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. This battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from the Iberian peninsula, and is considered by most historians to be of macrohistorical importance, in that it halted the Islamic conquests, and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith in Europe, during a period in which Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires.

0 Replies

You are indeed correct, Wolf O Donnell- The ends are the same and the means are different. But the means are all important.

Again, a group which attempts to achieve its aims utlizing legal and constitutional means is quite different from a group of fanatical killers who behead innocents who happen to be non-Muslim.

If you do not see a qualitiative difference between those who use legal, constitutionally accepted means to gain their ends and those who are fanatic, deranged killers, I hope you will meditate on the subject.

I am unaware of any fundamentalist group in the USA who as a group has decided to utilize illegal ends to effect their means without being willing to answer to their possible illegalities in a court of law.

Are you aware of the Fundamentalist drive to have DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) accepted as part of state constitutions all over the USA?

Are you aware of the Islamo-Fascists who blow themselves up in a Baghdad square killing innocent men, women and children?

If you are aware of both situations, you must note that both groups are indeed searching to achieve their ends. But there is a critical and vital difference.. One group operates under the law--the other under the rules of savagery.

0 Replies

I assume, then, that legal and constitutional actions by the Taliban during their rule in Afghanistan was perfectly OK by you Bernard?

0 Replies

Let us focus on the topic.

Wolf O Donnell says that it is a matter of ends and means. The fundamentalists and the Islamo-Fascists have certain ends. Of course.

They utilize certain means to arrive at those ends.

Of course.

The fact that the Islamo-Fascists utilize murderous means; means uncodified by any legal system; means which murder innocent men,women and children, while fundamentalists in the USA have attempted to gain their ends through the legal system established in the USA which, of course, can be and is tempered from time to time by not only the representatives of ALL of the citizens of the USA but also the Constitution which protects the basic rights of the citizenry; shows a critical difference which it appears that Wolf O Donnell will not accept.

Eorl asks whether the laws and the constitution of the Taliban would also be acceptable.

The rule of law is always preferable to savagery although the rule of law may, in the eyes of what most in the West would depict as most enlightened practices, be reprehensible.

The Taliban's horrendous treatment of women fell under their laws and, almost by itself would be a rational for the West's drive to reform the laws to more humane and Democratic ways.

In India, the practice of Suttee, which required new widows to immolate themselves after the deaths of their husbands, was abolished by the British in 1829 although it was a legal and religious practice.

Wolf O Donnell has not shown specifically that fundamentalists have reacted to what he terms as "perceived persecutions" in any way which is outside the law.

Of course, the world is filled with people attempting to gain thier ends.

The difference is in the means.

The Islamo-fascists have shown us that their means are savagery.

The Taliban have shown us that their means were cruelty, which means have now, with the aid of the West, been reformed.

Wolf O Donnell has apparently not done his homework. If he wants to get a view of a group who has not only shouted "we're being persecuted" at the top of their lungs and who, at times, have utilized illegal methods to gain their ends, he needs only to look at the Black Muslims.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

You are indeed correct, Wolf O Donnell- The ends are the same and the means are different. But the means are all important.

Yes, but the ends are equally as important and they are not something any decent person would want. The ends are to force their particular way of life on other people, something, they accuse the other people of doing. This thread was meant to criticise the ends, not the means.

If the end result is despicable, it does not matter how they got there. Both should be condemned equally.

Quote:

I am unaware of any fundamentalist group in the USA who as a group has decided to utilize illegal ends to effect their means without being willing to answer to their possible illegalities in a court of law.

I remember the murders of abortionists and the bombing of abortion clinics. Oh and the murders of homosexuals. They are thankfully few, though they do have their evil moments.

You think I don't condemn the Islamic fundamentalists? Sure, I do. Just because you yourself don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

I mean, take Harry Potter for example. The religious right see it as promoting sorcery, which is a rather stupid thing to do seeing as sorcery is a complete sham. Yet they completely miss the message of good triumphant over evil and the message of racism is bad and the message of being different is okay.

Just because somebody doesn't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

0 Replies

I am afraid that you have missed the point entirely, Wolf O Donnell.

You state that it the ends are "bad" then it is just as evil to want those "ends" as it is to utilize "bad means".

You began this thread with a complaint that the Fundamentalists felt "persecuted".

You completely neglected my post which stated that many people feel "persecuted" among them the Black Muslims.

Feeling "persecuted" is not, as far as I have been able to discover, a crime.

You decry the drive toward bad "ends". You have not proven which "ends" are evil and which ones are "good". You merely assume that Fundamentalist ends are "evil". Most important, you overlooked my statements that in the USA, people who are using or attempt to use bad "means" can be and are arrested for violation of the law.

You also overlooked my point which indicated, as I am sure you know, that people with bad "ends" in mind, cannot achieve thier "ends" in our system because of our usually bipartisan legislative bodies( both state and federal) and our courts which will render any attempts at "bad" ends impotent.

I am afraid that you just have a bee in your bonnet about Fundamentalists and Fundamentalism. If you know of bad "means" which are criminal, please contact the authorities, if you judge that some "ends" are bad ends and those "bad ends" as you see them are put into law and not challenged by our courts, I am very much afraid that the best you can do is to work against those "bad ends" in the political arena.

0 Replies

Fundies project a false IMAGE of persecution but are aggressive in their behavior and goals. In their convoluted logic they are identifying separation of church and state as the"enemy" when inreality religion mixed with politics is the evil as it gives unprecented power to the clergy by way of theocracy.

0 Replies

talk 72000- Your statement is indeed thought provoking. Would you care to be a little more less abstract? Can you state the "bad" ideas which the persecuted Fundamentalists have had ratified by either state legislatures or the Congress? I can find none.

If there are none, the alleged grousing of the Fundamentalists means nothing except to those who do not have the mental stamina to listen to opinions with which they do not agree.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

You decry the drive toward bad "ends". You have not proven which "ends" are evil and which ones are "good". You merely assume that Fundamentalist ends are "evil". Most important, you overlooked my statements that in the USA, people who are using or attempt to use bad "means" can be and are arrested for violation of the law.

I never stated that they were evil, Bernie, which just goes to show that you came to this thread prejudiced against people who criticise those who display a Persecution Complex.

How about those who are insisting on an Abstinence Program of sexual education that doesn't even mention condoms? That's detrimental. The HIV success in Uganda is being undermined currently because of US-Evangelical Groups' insistence on an abstinence-only program that doesn't even mention condoms.

Also, just because these groups don't manage to get their ideas passed through in the end doesn't mean their ideas aren't bad.

You are a prime example of the person I am criticising. A person who's so paranoid about persecution, the slightest bit of criticism is shouted down and not taken onboard.

0 Replies

Mr. Wolf O'Donnell- Would you please be so good as to tell me why the neglect of mention of condoms is detrimental? According to Article II of the Constitution--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Do you feel that people do not have a right to voice their views?

There is no compulsion for anyone to accept the proposition that "condoms" should not be used.

You are forgetting that the exercise of opinion does not mean that those opinions will be forced on anyone.

For example, there is a group in the United States called NAMBLA. iIt is, of course, the North American Man Boy Love Association. Now, while I may be personally streneously opposed to their beliefs and proposals, I cannot censor their ideas. I am sure that you are aware that the best way to discredit an idea is to allow it to be debated in the open.

Anything else is suppression of free speech. I am sure you would not advocate that, sir!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Wolf O'Donnell- Would you please be so good as to tell me why the neglect of mention of condoms is detrimental? According to Article II of the Constitution--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Yes, but mentioning that condom use can do such and such, is not forcing religious belief on someone. By insisting they do abstinence only, are you not forcing your abstinence only religious belief on someone? Of course, not. But if you mention only one and not the other, you are in effect, keeping them ignorant and ensuring they adhere only to your religious belief of non-condom use because they have no other known alternative.

Quote:

You are forgetting that the exercise of opinion does not mean that those opinions will be forced on anyone.

Yes, but you are forgetting that not mentioning a certain opinion means that said person won't have that particular opinion. So you are in effect, forcing them not to have a certain opinion.

Tell me, if you don't tell a Ugandan about condoms, how are they supposed to know? They don't have access to information like we do. The chances of them coming across a condom are in effect, next to nil.

Quote:

Anything else is suppression of free speech. I am sure you would not advocate that, sir!!

Mentioning condoms is not suppression of free speech. If anything it is providing another viewpoint. I did not say that it should be mentioned in place of abstinence, only that they should both be mentioned at the same time.

0 Replies

I think you would have me believe that there are no other opinions being offered to people other than "Abstinence" as a method.

If we were in the seventeenth century, you might be correct, but in the age of the Internet( Yes. Mr. Wolf O'Donnell, even the Ugandans know how to use the Internet and many there have access to them) everyone knows of alternatives and condoms.

I am unaware that the Fundamentalists have sent delegations to preach to the Ugandans?

Do you have evidence that they have done so?

I do know that the president of Uganda is not a progressive leader. He may be one of the people blocking the information from the Ugandans.

In that case, it is up to the Ugandans to get a new leader.

Or failing that, we could send a highly trained group of Seals who would jump out of their helicopters screaming--Condoms for everyone!!!

Really, Mr.O'Donnell- trying to blame the Fundamentalist Church leaders for what may be a problem in Africa is a bit of a stretch. Again, can you document the presence of American Fundamentalist Churchmen and women in Uganda preaching --"Abstinence only"!!!

If you cannot, your thesis is useless.

You do not seem to understand a vital point. We are a Republic. Every two years the voters elect a House and one third of the Senate. Every four years we elect a president. The legislature makes the laws. The executive enforces them and the judiciary rules on their constitutionality.

If you, or anyone, is concerned about the alleged "influence" of fundamentalist groups or, conversly, atheistic groups, or, additionally, those who wish to advance the goals of NAMBLA, please contact your Congressman. You must know, Mr. O'Donnell, that the Congress usually attempts to express the will of the populace.

It does not, at least at this time, pass laws that violate the first amendment with regard to freedom of religion or, indeed, freedom of speech.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I think you would have me believe that there are no other opinions being offered to people other than "Abstinence" as a method.

In the case of the Evangelical groups in Uganda, that would be a yes. In the case of quite a few Sex Education classes in the US, that would be a yes. For the majority of sex education classes, however, I would say that they do offer other opinions.

However, it is mainly the extremist religious groups that are offering only the abstinence.

Quote:

If we were in the seventeenth century, you might be correct, but in the age of the Internet( Yes. Mr. Wolf O'Donnell, even the Ugandans know how to use the Internet and many there have access to them) everyone knows of alternatives and condoms.

That sir, is incorrect. There may be some Ugandans who know how to use the Internet, but there are very few that have access to it.

Quote:

I am unaware that the Fundamentalists have sent delegations to preach to the Ugandans?

What? You've never heard of Christian charities? They do some proselytising along with charity work as well, don't you know.

Quote:

I do know that the president of Uganda is not a progressive leader. He may be one of the people blocking the information from the Ugandans.

And it could also be because the Ugandans don't have the money to set up an extensive network to support Internet access. I mean, this is a Developing World country we're talking about. You're treating it as if it was a Developed World country. Yes, I can't wait until the day they are a Developed World country, where the birth mortality rate isn't so high, where the people aren't so poor... but you know Uganda has its problems.

You're sick and tired of people talking against fundamentalist Christians? Well, I'm sick and tired of fundamentalist Christians looking down on me, with their smug, elitist smiles and insisting that only their way is the right way.

0 Replies

In the particular case of Uganda, i strongly suspect that Italgato doesn't know squat about the nation. In the highlands of Uganda, an insurrection has been raging for more than twenty years. There is almost no electricity, never mind internet access. One of the brutal aspects of that insurrection is the forced recruitment of children as soldiers, or, in the case of girls, support workers and sexual objects. These children receive no education, never mind access to information about condoms. When they do manage to escape the rebel armed forces, they often end up in the camps run by fundamentalist American christian groups. Small chance that they'll ever learn about condoms there. In those portions of Uganda free from the insurrection, condom use has risen dramatically due to government information campaigns, and the incidence of new cases of human immuno-virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome have been dramatically reduced, and the prevelance of HIV/AIDS has steadily decreased.

0 Replies

You are correct, Mr. Setanta. I do not have the encyclopediac knowledge of History that you do. I do not have a photographic memory as you must indeed have when you post literally hundreds of interesting facts on the History thread. I just cannot remember the facts off the top of my head as you do. What a memory you must have.

I need instead to go to sources to find facts.I am very sorry about that. But I do know how to read.

For example, I found that one of the worst human beings who ever lived was a leader in Uganda--the esteemed butcher- Idi Amin.

I discovered that there was long standing racial emnity between Muslim North and Christian South.

I read that The Kakwa andNubi of the Muslim north drank their victims' blood and ate thier livers and believed in the MAhdist "Yakan of Allah water" which when drunk makes soldiers invulnerable.

I discovered that Idi Amin led a coup after which he had what must be called a racist regime, indulging in massacres of the Langi and Acholi tribe.

I found that Idi Amin was an animal who had his wife killed and dismembered her, afterwards killing his son and eating his heart as he was advised by a witchdoctor to do.

I was able to discern that Idi Amin was actually supported by most other African States.

I was able to learn that the Dictator of Tanzania said that "There is this tendency in Africa that it does not matter if an African kills other Africans...Being black is not becoming a certificate to kill fellow Africans"

(Perhaps this last comment is the reason why Black African Islamo-Fascist Muslims are killing so many of their fellow countrymen)

Perhaps,Setanta is correct. Perhaps Wolf O'Donnell's overwrought fears about Fundamentalists are blocking the distribution of condoms is highly unlikely.

I fear that O'Donnell has overreached in his effort to denigrate the evil "fundamentalists"

Does he have a link?

I am greatful to Setanta who, I am sure, without even a glance at any source material, laid out his splendid paragraph. I wish I could do that. I can't.I can only write extemporaneously and give valid evidence on forty or fifty subjects. Setanta encompasses thousands--as those who have read him know( and all without even sneaking a peek at a book)

Amazing erudition!!!

0 Replies

Islamo-facist is a completely meaningless phrase to which rightwingnuts are addicted.

The map of Africa was drawn in foreign mininstries in Europe more than a century ago. It takes no account of tribal regions of the continent. Therefore, misery such as this in Uganda, in Nigeria in Rwanda and from time to time to a lesser extent in almost every other nation south of the Sahara--springs up as Africans slaughter one another for sake of ethnic hatred.

Italgato/Massagato/Mortkat/BernardR's puerile attempts at sarcasm cannot hide his obsession to argue with anyone with whom he suspects he is in ideological disagreement, without regard for whether or not he knows what the hell he's talking about. I/M/M/B's playground attempts to taunt cannot alter that fundamentalist NGOs in Africa have consistently attempted to peddle abstinence as the best method to combat HIV/AIDS, for reasons of theology, and despite the incontrovertible evidence that the use of condoms dramatically reduces the spread of the virus and its concommittant syndrome.

0 Replies

And let's not forget that time when the a Catholic group lied about there being microscopic pores in a condom that made it useless...

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I wish the link wasn't so long that it stretched the forums tables out of proportion...

Perhaps we should do the same thing with their posts, but if we do, no discusion will ever get done here. It'll all be like Nancy's Institute of something or other post, no debate, no thinking, just word after word in some kind of literature coma.

Or maybe, just maybe, this goes to show that the Religious Right really don't want to feel secure. They want the paranoia. They want to feel persecuted, so they can go on the offensive whilst claiming they're on the defensive.

Ignorance is Strength

Of course they want to feel persecuted. One of the focuses of christianity is that suffering in this life leads to blessings in the afterlife. I doubt there's much poverty amongst US fundy's. They need persecution to fill the void.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

and despite the incontrovertible evidence that the use of condoms dramatically reduces the spread of the virus and its concommittant syndrome.

I know from personal experience that condoms prevent disease. If anyone knew or even saw some of the women I've been with, they would have no doubt either Exclamation

0 Replies

The Myth of Religious Persecution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know