1
   

I wonder what the Religious Right has to say about this...

 
 
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 06:48 am
Perhaps this belongs in "Politics", but I think the essense of the discussion is in the religious domain. This made top bill on cnn.com today...

reposted from: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/13/iraq.main/index.html

Quote:
Revered Shiite shrine attacked again

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgents on Wednesday blew up two minarets at Samarra's revered Shiite Askariya Mosque, police said, in a repeat of the 2006 bombing that sparked Iraq's current wave of deadly sectarian violence.

There was no immediate word on casualties, but the blast has left residents of the city north of Baghdad furious, said a Samarra police official.

A U.S. military spokesman condemned the "violence as another attack on the people of Iraq by people who try to continue to separate divide and weaken the Iraqi people."

The spokesman declined to say whether the military would deploy more troops on the streets: "We continue to conduct the operations we do normally. I will not discuss specifics, and I will not discuss operational security."

Within hours of the attacks, Iraqi state television announced that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had imposed a curfew for Baghdad until further notice.

A U.S. military official in northern Iraq told The Associated Press that Samarra appeared calm by Wednesday afternoon.

The explosions rocked the town and blew billowing dust clouds into the air, store owner Imad Nagi told the AP.

"After the dust settled, I couldn't see the minarets anymore," Nagi told the AP. "So I closed the shop quickly and went home."

The blast followed clashes between gunmen and Iraqi National Police, who were guarding the holy site. During the firefight, the insurgents entered the mosque, also known as the Golden Dome, planted explosives around the minarets and detonated them.

In response, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for three days of mourning to mark the destruction of the minarets, according to a statement.

"Let the next three days be mourning days, where we spread the black banners and a call to prayer and shouting God is great in our mosques, whether they are Sunnis or Shiites, and to organize peaceful demonstrations and sit-ins in order for everyone to witness that the only enemy of Iraq is the occupation and therefore everyone must demand its departure or a timetable of its occupation."

The anti-American cleric also said no rival Sunni Arab could have been responsible for the bombing, calling the development a "cursed American-Israeli scenario that aims to spread the turmoil and plant the hatred among the Muslim brethren."

During the strike on the mosque in February 2006, attackers dressed as Iraqi police commandos bombed and heavily damaged the shrine, collapsing the top half of the dome.

Although Samarra is a predominantly Sunni city, Askariya is one of the four major Shiite shrines in Iraq. Iraq's other major Shiite sites are in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. The fourth is in the Baghdad district of Kadhimiya.

Askariya is sacred to Shiites, who believe Imam al-Mehdi will one day reappear at the mosque, bringing them salvation. Al-Mehdi is the 12th and final awaited imam in Shiite Islam. He is the son of Imam Hasan al Askari, the 11th imam, buried in the shrine. His grandfather, the 10th Imam, also is buried there.

Al-Mehdi is said to have disappeared in the eighth century during the funeral of his father and is believed by Shiites to have been withdrawn by God from the eyes of the people. They are waiting for him to reappear as their leader.


We're over in Iraq trying to get these people to stop fighting. But how is that ever going to happen when the bloodshed has religious motivation behind it?

It seems to me there are only 2 solutions. Either kill everyone on one side of the argument, or disavow them of their religious convictions that fuel the conflict. The choice, to me, seems obvious.

But this would require America to hold up a mirror... and how can we tell Shiites that their ridiculous religious convictions (in bold and italics above) are detrimental to a sustainable society when most of this nation is believes something disturbingly familiar about a different god? Imagine if a bloody, suicide-bomber-driven war broke out in America that depended on Christians accepting that homosexuals should have the right to marriage? How would that be resolved?

American lives are being lost over this crap... and I think one of the ways it stops is to own up to our country's own sins. Otherwise we're being hypocrites by telling people to stop casting stones.

But what does the Religious Right have to say about stories like this? "Believe in Jesus instead, and it will all go away."? "Your beliefs are retarded."? "I think they should be pissed about the destruction of their sacred minarets." ???

What do you guys think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 864 • Replies: 17
No top replies

 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 07:56 am
Re: I wonder what the Religious Right has to say about this.
stlstrike3 wrote:
Perhaps this belongs in "Politics", but I think the essense of the discussion is in the religious domain. This made top bill on cnn.com today...

reposted from: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/13/iraq.main/index.html

Quote:
Revered Shiite shrine attacked again

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgents on Wednesday blew up two minarets at Samarra's revered Shiite Askariya Mosque, police said, in a repeat of the 2006 bombing that sparked Iraq's current wave of deadly sectarian violence.

There was no immediate word on casualties, but the blast has left residents of the city north of Baghdad furious, said a Samarra police official.

A U.S. military spokesman condemned the "violence as another attack on the people of Iraq by people who try to continue to separate divide and weaken the Iraqi people."

The spokesman declined to say whether the military would deploy more troops on the streets: "We continue to conduct the operations we do normally. I will not discuss specifics, and I will not discuss operational security."

Within hours of the attacks, Iraqi state television announced that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had imposed a curfew for Baghdad until further notice.

A U.S. military official in northern Iraq told The Associated Press that Samarra appeared calm by Wednesday afternoon.

The explosions rocked the town and blew billowing dust clouds into the air, store owner Imad Nagi told the AP.

"After the dust settled, I couldn't see the minarets anymore," Nagi told the AP. "So I closed the shop quickly and went home."

The blast followed clashes between gunmen and Iraqi National Police, who were guarding the holy site. During the firefight, the insurgents entered the mosque, also known as the Golden Dome, planted explosives around the minarets and detonated them.

In response, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for three days of mourning to mark the destruction of the minarets, according to a statement.

"Let the next three days be mourning days, where we spread the black banners and a call to prayer and shouting God is great in our mosques, whether they are Sunnis or Shiites, and to organize peaceful demonstrations and sit-ins in order for everyone to witness that the only enemy of Iraq is the occupation and therefore everyone must demand its departure or a timetable of its occupation."

The anti-American cleric also said no rival Sunni Arab could have been responsible for the bombing, calling the development a "cursed American-Israeli scenario that aims to spread the turmoil and plant the hatred among the Muslim brethren."

During the strike on the mosque in February 2006, attackers dressed as Iraqi police commandos bombed and heavily damaged the shrine, collapsing the top half of the dome.

Although Samarra is a predominantly Sunni city, Askariya is one of the four major Shiite shrines in Iraq. Iraq's other major Shiite sites are in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. The fourth is in the Baghdad district of Kadhimiya.

Askariya is sacred to Shiites, who believe Imam al-Mehdi will one day reappear at the mosque, bringing them salvation. Al-Mehdi is the 12th and final awaited imam in Shiite Islam. He is the son of Imam Hasan al Askari, the 11th imam, buried in the shrine. His grandfather, the 10th Imam, also is buried there.

Al-Mehdi is said to have disappeared in the eighth century during the funeral of his father and is believed by Shiites to have been withdrawn by God from the eyes of the people. They are waiting for him to reappear as their leader.


We're over in Iraq trying to get these people to stop fighting. But how is that ever going to happen when the bloodshed has religious motivation behind it?

It seems to me there are only 2 solutions. Either kill everyone on one side of the argument, or disavow them of their religious convictions that fuel the conflict. The choice, to me, seems obvious.

But this would require America to hold up a mirror... and how can we tell Shiites that their ridiculous religious convictions (in bold and italics above) are detrimental to a sustainable society when most of this nation is believes something disturbingly familiar about a different god? Imagine if a bloody, suicide-bomber-driven war broke out in America that depended on Christians accepting that homosexuals should have the right to marriage? How would that be resolved?

American lives are being lost over this crap... and I think one of the ways it stops is to own up to our country's own sins. Otherwise we're being hypocrites by telling people to stop casting stones.

But what does the Religious Right have to say about stories like this? "Believe in Jesus instead, and it will all go away."? "Your beliefs are retarded."? "I think they should be pissed about the destruction of their sacred minarets." ???

What do you guys think?



Speaking only for myself:

I am wondering, what does the religious left think about it?

That would be those who claim 'tolerance' as their virtue, and are all about toleration of just about ANY point of view (except Biblical Christianity).
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 08:06 am
More shameless self promotion:

Perhaps the UN should ban religion.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 09:03 pm
A better question is why the United stats doesn't persue our own domestic Terrorists, like the KKK. There certainly inspire terror in many communities here in the US. As a child I had rocks thrown at me and my parents because my father was Japanese, and they didn't believe in mixing blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK

What about the Irish Republican Army? Did that confict just go away? There was a time where you could be approached in the streets by gun men an asked if you were protestant or catholic, choose wisely or face death.

What about the Nagaland Rebels? All Christians trying to break off there state from the rest of india, and using violence too.

Me thinks that the only terrorism worth pursuing is the type where dark skinned people of a different belief are invovled.

As for you qyestion Neo. I certainly agree that there are people who are prepared to be tolerant of every faith other than Christianity, and I don't support that. However, while seemingly unfair, you should not be so quick to dismiss that people like this are not simply postering; that they may have real reasons to dislike christianity. Personally, I have reasons to dislike Christianity, but I don't hate Christians. I am very tolerant, but tolerances have limits, mine being the point where my respect is betrayed and Christians try to impose their beliefs on me. Trust me, that tolerance goes for all beliefs not just Christian. If a Muslim, or Buddhist were to try the same thing, I'd show the same distaste.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2007 09:23 pm
The religious right is being asked, because they are the ones trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of America through the political process. Never mind that all Americans ARE NOT christians.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 12:51 pm
So, CI, when YOU vote for someone who holds your POV, are you not also trying to 'impose your view' on the rest of us thru the political process?

What a double standard. And from one who consistently claims that he has no interest in imposing his personal views on anyone but himself.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 12:54 pm
FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF BY SOME IN THE US: Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 01:25 pm
Great non-answer.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 03:16 pm
real: Great non-answer.

It's simply because you don't have a clue.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 05:38 pm
I suppose you are correct , CI.

I don't have a clue why it is OK for you to vote for those who support your POV, but not OK for others to do the same.

Can you explain this to us? Use small words, for apparently it is so deep that it has gone way over us.

Why do you claim that you can do what you disallow others?

Isn't that the classic definition of .......well, you know.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:02 pm
Your hard-wired brain won't understand anything I say about this subject, so I'll save myself the effort.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jun, 2007 06:05 pm
The following is from Wiki: see if you understand any of it.

Freedom of religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.Freedom of religion is a guarantee by a government for freedom of belief for individuals and freedom of worship for individuals and groups. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom not to follow any religion (irreligion) and not to believe in any god (atheism or agnosticism). Religious toleration is the condition of accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own. Freedom of religion is considered by many in Western nations to be a fundamental human right.[1]
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 09:02 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
The following is from Wiki: see if you understand any of it.

Freedom of religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.Freedom of religion is a guarantee by a government for freedom of belief for individuals and freedom of worship for individuals and groups. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom not to follow any religion (irreligion) and not to believe in any god (atheism or agnosticism). Religious toleration is the condition of accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own. Freedom of religion is considered by many in Western nations to be a fundamental human right.[1]


I don't see any verbiage supporting freedom from atheism. Is that included?

If you don't want Christians to vote for candidates who share their convictions, can we get the same promise that you (atheists) won't vote for candidates who share yours?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 09:10 am
real, Atheism is not a "religion." It's the lack of religion; we don't believe in any superstitious god(s). You lack common sense and logic when you post "stupid stuff."
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 09:54 am
I never said atheism is a religion.

I just want to know if you support the same freedom for others that you want for yourself.

You don't want others to vote based on anything they believe.

Are you going to refrain from voting based on what you believe?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2007 10:11 am
You then answered you own stupid question. We're talking about "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion."
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 12:32 pm
So are non-atheists allowed 'freedom from atheism' ?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2007 02:30 pm
Free from nothing? Your choice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I wonder what the Religious Right has to say about this...
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 12:59:10