I've said it many times here - extremism is the enemy of all of us.
Cycloptichorn
Wilso wrote:You've obviously never seen the "God Hates Fags" website. There's alot **** more than six!
Those knuckleheads are from the Westboro Baptist Church out of Topeka (which is affectionately known around these parts as the armpit of the world), and are not numerous. But in any event, as pathetic as they are, you cannot be suggesting a comparison between the picketing Westboro church folks and the islamic terrorists.
Lord's Resistance Army
The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), formed in 1987, is a rebel paramilitary group operating mainly in northern Uganda. The group is engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in what is now one of Africa's longest-running conflicts. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself a spirit medium, and apparently wishes to establish a state based on his unique interpretation of Biblical millenarianism. The LRA have been accused of widespread human rights violations, including mutilation, torture, rape, the abduction of civilians, the use of child soldiers and a number of massacres.
(Read on at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army)
Ticomaya wrote:Wilso wrote:You've obviously never seen the "God Hates Fags" website. There's alot **** more than six!
Those knuckleheads are from the Westboro Baptist Church out of Topeka (which is affectionately known around these parts as the armpit of the world), and are not numerous. But in any event, as pathetic as they are, you cannot be suggesting a comparison between the picketing Westboro church folks and the islamic terrorists.
I think they're ALL freaks. I don't care if they're waving placards or blowing up buses.
So the thread has devolved to calling the religion which kills the least the best?
Apparently Atheism wins hands down. It preaches no hatred, contains no creed used to cudgel heretics and has killed no one in pursuit of its beliefs.
One, two, three, a dozen, a million? That then graduates morality? Have we as a species come to that; quantity defines morality?
Backwards then to the slime mold we slip.
The US, purported to be toted at a "Christian nation" by many, beats all of these lesser crimes, with two nuclear bomb attacks on civilian targets, killing upwards of 250,000 instantly and another 250, 000-500,000 in total.
Sure, the debate rages on, a "just war" causes injustice, and "by killing many, many times more were saved" That does dovetail well with Rabbi Hillel who one hundred years before Christ said; to side with the lesser evil otherwise a greater evil occurs.
Are lives merely numbers? Kill one to save two? Kill a thousand to save a million?
How about kill five to save six?
Or is that ratio too low?
Where does one place the line in this?
But, factually the US killed more innocent victims by direct attacks than has any terrorists attack in history (well that other paragon of Christian virtue Great Britain, with the firebombing of Dresden did nearly as much damage, skull-wise). Glossing over the atrocious of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden with "Well, we're at war" does not diminish the death count, the scorched flesh melting off the bone and deformities for generations, nor diminish how much like the 911 terrorists the US was in killing every man, woman, and child they possibly could in those cities.
Who ever "they" are, "they" can say "We're at war, too" just as we did in August 1945, and an insistence on the civilizing affect of pieces of paper proclaiming "Declarations or War", or "Rules for War" seem to be absurdities for rational men. War, by its nature has no rules.
War, it is an ugly thing. It blinds us to violence otherwise considered beyond the Pale.
If you want to count skulls to pick your mostest, bestest religion go right ahead, low count wins. But if you want to know my opinion, religion sucks in the wrong hands. And most folk are fools anyway who are too ignorant or unreceptive of the metaphorical basis and explanations for the metaphysics of religions anyway. So, best leave it alone. The negatives far out way the positives, skull counting taken literally.
As to Islam: until it goes through a transformation akin the Western Reformation it will be hard indeed to fit it in with modern rational thought. Its mysticism will have to be re-aligned with rational thought or it will fail to serve its purpose. And oddly enough, it once was, nearly eight hundred years ago and ruled the World from Gibraltar to the Indonesia.
And calls proclaiming Christrianity as a peaceful religion are God damned dumb. Pointing to your holy books and boasting of its pacifictic nature while ignoring the centuries of where Christian killed Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Animist and even other Christians in defense of that Holy Book makes you look like a blind stupid fool.
Exactly correct. As I already said, the Crusades killed far far more Moslems than anyone else did in those days. The colonizers of Africa and Asia killed millions of innocent people.
MarionT wrote:Exactly correct. As I already said, the Crusades killed far far more Moslems than anyone else did in those days. The colonizers of Africa and Asia killed millions of innocent people.
You've clearly never had any contact with history books. The crusades were a defensive reaction to slammite expropriation of Christian territories and mistreatment of Christians in those territories and pilgrims afterwards.
The guy who did most of the killing of slammites in the middle ages was Chengis Khan and even that was in the form of reprisal after slammites burned the beards off of four of his ambassadors, presumably to show Chengis Khan what bad people they were.....
That was an eloquent and heart-felt post dyslexia. But with all due respect, I'm afraid it's nothing more than a utopian vision with no basis in reality. There will always be violence in one form or another no matter what you do. There will always be something to fight about, even if it is just for the sake of fighting. There will always be people who teach their children to stand up and fight to defend themselves, and they will in turn teach their children, etc.
candidone1 wrote:There are millions of warmongering right wing religious zealots in the US who would love to see their Christian beliefs spread throught the world, but don't need to get down and dirty on the front lines of the conflict.
They simply elect the right man into the White House, and he takes care of the rest. He shares their agenda but has the means to see it to fruition.
Nonsense. Where exactly are we spreading our Christian beliefs through force?
Show me where Christians are saying anything close to this...
"September 19, 2006 -- Muslim terrorists proved Pope Benedict XVI's point yesterday - vowing to fight Christianity and spill blood until Islam conquers the world.
"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," warned an umbrella group of extremists led by al Qaeda in Iraq.
Another Iraqi terrorist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations." It called the pope "the stupid pig . . . prancing with his blasphemies in his house. "
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/world_conquer_qaeda_makes_pontiffs_case_worldnews_andy_soltis___with_post_wire_services.htm
The discussion is not about atheism. It is not about which religion is best. It is not about which religion is less evil. It is not about Bush. It is not about the war.
The discussion is about Rosie's statement is that Christian extremist are just a dangerous as Muslim extremists.
The fact that one is more dangerous than the other does not make the other not fangerous it just makes it less dangerous. the fact taht one religion is more dangerous than the other does not absolve the other of their extremism... it only means that it is less dangerous. It does not make one religion right and the other wrong. It only means that one religion is less dangerous.
I am not defending christianity, nor am I saying it does no wrong (trust me... I've seen the harm that christianity can do). I am only saying that muslim extremism is more dangerous than christian extremism. I even acknowledge that christian extremism has the potential to become as dangerous as muslim extremism. Infact, I think the more extreme the muslim become the more reactive and extrem the christians will get.
For me, the differnce right now is night and day however. The fact that there is even discussion is mindboggling to me. Just ask yourself this:
Which would be more dangerous to your health: denouncing Islam as the false religion on worldwide TV or denouncing christianity as the false religion on worldwide TV?
I get such a kick reading the back and forth about which "religion" is more bloodthirsty than the other. Throughout history, people have used religion as a justification for their misdeeds. Be it the inquisitions, witch burnings, the crusades against muslims, the muslims conquering territory in the mideast, or whatever. I could go on and on, right up to the present where we have people trying to justifiy killing abortion doctors by claiming that God told them to do it. People will always try to justify their misdeeds by claiming innocence because of a higher authority. Somehow, I doubt God is amused by it all. Recounting the atrocities committed down through the ages in the name of religion is a waste of time. It is not the religion that is the problem, but rather the people who commit the atrocities and claim religion as justification. It is man twisting religion for his own greed or power that is the problem.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism and anything else should not be defined by the idiots who justify killing of others to spread their faith or who somehow believe they must defend the righteousness of their faith by killing those who they see as sinful. They should be defined by the majority who live in peace with all people and follow the true teachings of their faith as best they can.
The problem as I see it is that normally it is only the idiots who claim a faith for their own wicked purposes that get the headlines.
kuvasz wrote:So the thread has devolved to calling the religion which kills the least the best?
The question concerns Rosie's claim that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam.
It's not whether radical Hinduism, radical Satinism, or radical Atheism is as dangerous as radical Islam.
Quote:And calls proclaiming Christrianity as a peaceful religion are God damned dumb. Pointing to your holy books and boasting of its pacifictic nature while ignoring the centuries of where Christian killed Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Animist and even other Christians in defense of that Holy Book makes you look like a blind stupid fool.
What century are you stuck in, kuv? Try to live in the now.
Popular "Christianity" is wrapped-up in Americana and commercialism/capitalism. I think this has a lot to do with fundamentalist views concerning the End Times, which serve to strengthen support for market-driven, US military aggression. It works out, beautifully, that we can invade the Middle East for the good of our economy AND for Jesus.
I agree that Muslim extremists seem more dangerous than Christian extremists. But do you think the Christian extremists are any less bloodthirsty? Do you think they are satisfied with the amount of violence that has already taken place? Muslim extremists are more desperate, so they seem more dangerous. But check out the destruction done by the other side, which barely even gives a sh!t.
Rosie must die, cut off her head and send the video to all major television outlets so others will know not to defame Christianity the religion of peace!
echi wrote:Popular "Christianity" is wrapped-up in Americana and commercialism/capitalism. I think this has a lot to do with fundamentalist views concerning the End Times, which serve to strengthen support for market-driven, US military aggression. It works out, beautifully, that we can invade the Middle East for the good of our economy AND for Jesus.
I don't believe this for one instant. I think you are having a difficult time seperating issues which is causing you to make strange statements like the one above. Our market system has nothing to do with christianity. It is simple basic economics of supply and demand.
echi wrote:I agree that Muslim extremists seem more dangerous than Christian extremists. But do you think the Christian extremists are any less bloodthirsty? Do you think they are satisfied with the amount of violence that has already taken place? Muslim extremists are more desperate, so they seem more dangerous. But check out the destruction done by the other side, which barely even gives a sh!t.
I ceratinly think there are bloodthirsty christian extremists. Compared one on one, I think they would be close to equally dangerous (if you took the worst muslim extremist and the worst christian extremist and compared only those two).Taken as a whole, however and I don't see how you can even make a comparison.
I'm not really sure why you keep saying that christians don't give a ****... if they don't give a **** then why are they willing to take extreme mesures to further their cause? If you are saying that they don't give a **** about the destruction they cause, do you actually think that muslim extremists give a **** about the destruction they cause? That is kind of built into extreme actions... if you gave a **** about the destruction you caused you wouldn't do the actions that are causing the destruction.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:echi wrote:Popular "Christianity" is wrapped-up in Americana and commercialism/capitalism. I think this has a lot to do with fundamentalist views concerning the End Times, which serve to strengthen support for market-driven, US military aggression. It works out, beautifully, that we can invade the Middle East for the good of our economy AND for Jesus.
I don't believe this for one instant. I think you are having a difficult time seperating issues which is causing you to make strange statements like the one above. Our market system has nothing to do with christianity. It is simple basic economics of supply and demand.
No, it's the American Christian who's having a difficult time separating issues.
Quote:echi wrote:I agree that Muslim extremists seem more dangerous than Christian extremists. But do you think the Christian extremists are any less bloodthirsty? Do you think they are satisfied with the amount of violence that has already taken place? Muslim extremists are more desperate, so they seem more dangerous. But check out the destruction done by the other side, which barely even gives a sh!t.
I ceratinly think there are bloodthirsty christian extremists. Compared one on one, I think they would be close to equally dangerous (if you took the worst muslim extremist and the worst christian extremist and compared only those two).Taken as a whole, however and I don't see how you can even make a comparison.
Compare the body counts.
Quote:I'm not really sure why you keep saying that christians don't give a ****... if they don't give a **** then why are they willing to take extreme mesures to further their cause?
They don't really care, right now, because this is not happening where they live. And they don't need to take "extreme" measures. All they have to do is buy in to the idea that the US fights wars to spread freedom, including religious freedom. The resulting "extremism" is carried out by bureaucratic hierarchies like the corporate-driven US government.
Quote:If you are saying that they don't give a **** about the destruction they cause, do you actually think that muslim extremists give a **** about the destruction they cause? That is kind of built into extreme actions... if you gave a **** about the destruction you caused you wouldn't do the actions that are causing the destruction.
That's not at all what I am saying. Other than the relatively few extremists, most Christians simply don't worry as much about their "cause" (relative to the Muslims we see on the news). You can argue that Christians are currently less "extreme", but they are certainly no less dangerous.
echi wrote:Popular "Christianity" is wrapped-up in Americana and commercialism/capitalism. I think this has a lot to do with fundamentalist views concerning the End Times, which serve to strengthen support for market-driven, US military aggression. It works out, beautifully, that we can invade the Middle East for the good of our economy AND for Jesus.
I agree that Muslim extremists seem more dangerous than Christian extremists. But do you think the Christian extremists are any less bloodthirsty? Do you think they are satisfied with the amount of violence that has already taken place? Muslim extremists are more desperate, so they seem more dangerous. But check out the destruction done by the other side, which barely even gives a sh!t.
Let me get this straight, American foreign policy is essentially the extension of a Christian worldview that's ultimate goal is setting the stage for the end times, while satisfying our economic needs in the meantime. Is this what you are trying to say?
