While we're working on all the religious rioters being nice to each other, how come those atheists aren't raising hell?
Oh, they don't believe in hell.
Posted by Bob in Pacifica at February 25, 2006 08:38 PMThey will do what they always do. They will claim the rioters don't represent Christianity. It is the same thing the Muslims say in similar circumstances.
Posted by Norm Jenson at February 25, 2006 09:28 PMActually if you had followed the story you might have wanted to note the church's statement. It is a lesson for many in the US on the reality of working with a culture that sees tolerance only as weakness. There is no doubt that if Christians are sufficiently enticed they should defend themselves - and yes that does mean that they will kill those who have repeatedly been aggressors.
Here is the statement from the Christians prior to the violence:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/41/00/acns4113.cfm note paragraph 2c. which discusses a "monopoly of violence"
Religion is EVIL and the dumb dolts that follow any religion are FOOLS....
Posted by theatheist at February 25, 2006 10:15 PMThey will do what they always do. They will claim the rioters don't represent Christianity.
Agreed. They'll say, 'Oh, but those aren't true Christians.'
It's always nice when one can emerge from a disaster unscathed merely by equivocating and fiddling with semantics. They'll say that Christians don't commit such atrocities because anyone who would do so isn't really a Christian. As though it were the same thing as saying that there are no married bachelors because anyone who is married isn't a bachelor.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at February 26, 2006 12:05 AMWho was on CBS news tonight, demonstrating against gays at MILITARY FUNERALS? Dragging American flags in the dirt with their feet, holding the following signs: "Fags doom nations", "You're going to hell", "God blew up the troops", "Thank God for 911", and "Thank God for dead soldiers".
12 states have passed laws against these anti-gay "crusaders", to prevent demonstrations at military funerals.
So, who were these EVIL BASTARDS? No, not the clan, but the "good Christains" of the WESTBOROUGH CAPTIVITY CHURCH, TOPEKA,KANSAS.
Is harassing war widows at their loved one's military funeral proper Christain behavior? I can only hope that their own "You're going to hell" signs will eventually apply to each and every one of them.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2006 01:44 AMReligion is EVIL and the dumb dolts that follow any religion are FOOLS....
Posted by theatheist
I am neither a dumb dolt or evil, and I consider myself a Christian. You know, I had this conversation last night with my far-right, Bush loving friends. "All Muslins are murders." "The only good Muslin is a dead Muslin." "Their are all out to kill us." "We should nuke everyone of them."
Just as any group of people, their are radical factions within. It is very easy to blame a whole group of people because of the actions of some, but there are, believe it or not, Christians who do not follow the radical policies of "an eye for an eye." People like Randall Terry, Dobson, and Robertson represent that far-right, religious zealots who do not speak for the majority of Christians.
Those Nigerian Christians or no better than the "Igbo tribe who launched revenge attacks in response to an earlier massacre of Christians in the north of the country." Just as there are Muslins who do not follow their own teachings, there are Christians who do not follow the word of God. Both should be equally condemmed for their actions.
Just as Bush is building a case for hating liberals, we should be very careful in building hatred for Christians also. I know of no one who is a Christian liberal who advocates the policies of this Administraiton, much less the actions of people like Terry, Dobson and Robertson. In fact, many are fighting the same fight that we do here on TLC. We need allies, and that includes those Christians who have the same values and belief systems that we do.
Unfortunately, the pulpits of America sent alot of good, bad, and ugly Christains to the polls, and I can no longer ignore the massive damage they have helped to cause in the name of abortion, stem cell, gay marriage, gay adoption, 10 commandments, school prayer, and, my personal favorite, the "war" on Christmas.
Besides, they rang my doorbell on Superbowl Sunday, with Bibles in hand. Now THAT alone is grounds to dislike them.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2006 06:39 AMThank Judith. Good stuff.
Posted by Daryl at February 26, 2006 06:40 AMShould read: The "Igbo tribe who launched revenge attacks in response to an earlier massacre of Christians in the north of the country" are no different than those who killed the Christians.
Posted by Judith at February 26, 2006 06:41 AMFanatics of all stripes are equally evil, and people who kill others are evil for whatever reason they do it. People who glom together a whole group of people based on what "a few bad apples do" are pretty hopeless and you can't reason with them anyway.
I don't like hearing that Christians are morally superior when, especially now, I don't feel proud to say "I'm Christian." The Dobsons, the people who wear WWJD and then insult others make me want to throw up. The Jesus I was raised to know, in my 8 years of Catholic school, was a kind, gentle person, and not vengeful and killerlike that I see in the eyes of the Christian fanatics. When my friend's dad was trying to get him to go to church, he said he told him the congregation practiced "churchgoer on Sunday, hypocrite on Monday."
/off my soapbox
Unfortunately, the pulpits of America sent alot of good, bad, and ugly Christains to the polls, and I can no longer ignore the massive damage they have helped to cause in the name of abortion, stem cell, gay marriage, gay adoption, 10 commandments, school prayer, and, my personal favorite, the "war" on Christmas.
Besides, they rang my doorbell on Superbowl Sunday, with Bibles in hand. Now THAT alone is grounds to dislike them.
Al, there is a vast difference between main stream Christians as opposed to fundamentalists, just as their is a difference between those Muslins who want to live in peace and their counterpart who want to destroy. Many of us are for stem cell research, abortion, and equal rights for all, which includes gays.
George Bush wants you to hate Christians. That way he can drive the far-right religious zealots further into the GOP camp. Why do you think Rove developed the idea of Bush being "born-again"? To win an election by mobilizing the far-right fundies while Bush was Governor of Texas.
This may come as a surprise, but the fundamentalist Christian hates people like me also. In fact, they hate all Christians who do not conform to their worldview. I can assure you that they are not the majority in this Country, or worldwide, for that matter.
Posted by Judith at February 26, 2006 07:03 AMAnn, I share in your feelings. Often the ones who hate the most and are the least tolerant, are the ones who sit in the front pews. And Jesus said "I know you not."
Posted by Judith at February 26, 2006 07:09 AMSorry, that should be Sharon, not Ann.
Posted by Judith at February 26, 2006 07:18 AMJudith, I don't think Bush wants anyone to hate christians, they're useful tools to him. And it doesn't really have to be a religious belief that causes one faction to get riled up enough to kill to prove their supremacy over another. Look at the Nazis, for example. While christianity was a component that helped convince regular Germans that the murders of jews, gays, gypsies, the disabled etc, were acceptable, they were more about the white race being superior and culling out the "bad" elements; same with some of our home-grown militia groups, as well as the cult of Bush and the rise of the rightwing reich. The allusions to violence by extremists like Rush and Coulter mirror the Nazi "final solution" but aren't so much based in religion as it is in "us vs. them and we're better."
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 07:34 AMJudith, I think you are one of the good, rational, clear thinking people who post here.
However, the fact remains that Bush was empowered by the gullible, non-thinking, brainwashed, scared, and wealthy voters, most of which were Christains voting for religious reasons, greed, or power, but not constitutional ones.
Republicans are already cranking up the gay adoption angle for the mid-terms. Ho hum, another trip to the bank with the Christain anti-gay votes.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2006 07:36 AMI think what Judith says is accurate, but changes nothing. The problem moderate and liberal Christians have (and probably always have had) is that many if not most are non-evangelical in nature. The notion of witnessing and proselytizing is simply stronger (and engages more dramatically) in the social sphere. Moderate and Liberal Christianity tends toward private action---the individual, not collective. ("In your face" Christianity is something I have dwelt in all my life as a Southerner, but it doesn't represent me.)
The American Christian community has not had an open discussion of this. We have preferred to "go our own way" and ,as a result, default the visible presence of Christianity to the louder and visible factions. We have been polite and said "well, that's their interpretation of Christianity", and let it go. Christians don't know how to confront Christians in this country. Maybe that is a good thing. I would not want us to be as Irish Catholics fighting Irish Protestants, nor as Shia vs Sunni in the Muslim faith. But Christianity in America keeps avoiding the fundamentally theological discussion it needs to have.
You can argue this is true of all faiths or social groups. Yes, there are always "fringe" elements and "centrist" elements---clumsey ways of describing bell-curve statistical relationships. But I don't think that is an excuse for Christians to avoid an important argument among themselves. The fact that the liberal and moderate factions are so distressingly silent is obvious. The best hero they can point to is a liberal evangelical (whose name escapes me for the moment), but why is that? Early American evangelism was more in tune with American social ideals than present day evangelism? Why is that? Why is it people feel they need to move to South Carolina to have a Christian State? I don't see these questions being answered in the open. If you can't do that, don't worry about whether Jesus would kill Muslim Nigerians.
Posted by gtash at February 26, 2006 07:40 AMURcoyote: If everyone looked and thought exactly the same, there would still be wars over minutia.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2006 07:49 AMI have no doubt, TIKI. Humans need conflict to give their lives meaning. When we're not fighting for resources, we're killing each other over ideology. And if things get to peaceful in one ideology, then we'll fight over sandals and gourds. Meanwhile, Brian's hanging on a cross, and the original message gets lost in the skirmish.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 08:05 AM"too" peaceful, obviously.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 08:06 AMHumans need conflict to give their lives meaning.
NO WE DON'T!
Hah! Just kidding!
Posted by bbtb at February 26, 2006 08:20 AMbbtb, good one. Heh. Always look on the bright side of life!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 08:25 AMda da da da da da da da.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2006 08:40 AMMore foolishness from pessimist.
A single incident, in response to provocation ("...in response to an earlier massacre of Christians in the north of the country") and condemned by the Christian Church leadership.
Condemnation by the Christian Church leadership is the fundamental difference, pessimist.
"It is time for every religion which promotes peace to see to it that its acolytes follow the beliefs they profess..."
And the Muslims are doing this....
In the Muslim world, the subjugation and killing of non-Muslims is a basic tenant of the faith, and is promoted by the religious leadership. Laws in many Muslim nations codify this venal hatred of non-Muslims: in Saudi Arabia apostasy is punishable by death; celebrating the eucharist is illegal; and there have been occasions where telethons are broadcast to raise money for the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers who murder Jewish, Chrisitan, and Muslim men, women, and children.
If you wish to draw a parallel between Christian violence and Muslim violence, you necessarily have to find (current) examples of Christian leadership promoting the murder of non-Chrisitains as one of the fundamental obligations of the faithful.
Good luck.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 08:47 AMIamcoyote, that is what I was trying to say. That the fundamentalists were always and are tools of this Administration. The more we speak out against Christians (which includes the main stream Christian, because they are dumped into the mix), the more he can promote hate within the fundalmentalist religious sector against all of us. Remember the "I'm not a divider, but an uniter." He is the biggest divider ever between the Christian and the non-believer. Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
The worse mistake that the main stream religious community continues to make, is not speaking out against this Administration. Millions of Christians abhor this pResident, but have not been willing to speak out in a public forum, although some ministers speak to their congregations in very harsh terms about this pResident.
All I am trying to say is that people seem to believe that Christian means fundalmentalist. And for those of us who are liberal Christians, we do not like being dumped into the fundamentalist group and despised by our fellow liberals. As I said, "they hate us too."
Gtash, you have presented many excellent points.
Apparently, teabagger forgets Republican spokesvestite dAnn Coulter's call to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." But then, no one has accused the teabag of being particularly clever.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 08:52 AMAnn Coulter is not a spokesperson for the Republican Party, nor is she part of the leadership of any Christian Church.
Re-read my post and try again.
All I am trying to say is that people seem to believe that Christian means fundalmentalist. And for those of us who are liberal Christians, we do not like being dumped into the fundamentalist group and despised by our fellow liberals. As I said, "they hate us too."
Judith, sadly, the most vocal "christians" are the fundamentalist extremists, probably because someone just standing up and saying "god is love" is boring. Blame the media for not covering all angles (again), and allowing the conflation of christianity with violent extremists, not lefty atheists. As a non-believer myself, I'm glad people like Phelps with his "god is hate" message, Pat Robertson and his assassination dreams, and the Shiavo freak show on parade get in the spotlight, because it reinforces the idea that extremists do not make good leaders, and religion doesn't belong in government. I'm sorry that the majority of believers are caught up in the stereotype, but the onus is not on liberal atheists to change the message, but the liberal believers to shun the extremists and marginalize those with a message of hate.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 09:07 AMBagley reminds me of my encounter with friends last night. "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim." Bagley, don't bother to educate yourself about the Muslims and their faith. It is much easier to see them ALL as our enemy. As my GOP friends said last night, "we need to drop a bomb and wipe them off the face of the earth." I assume that is a plan you would embrace. To people like you, there is no such thing as "the innocent."
While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).
"... because it reinforces the idea that extremists do not make good leaders, and religion doesn't belong in government."
It is unfortunate that you would rather believe that this is manifested in the present Administration rather than see that this is demonstrated daily in the Islamic world.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 09:15 AM"I'm sorry that the majority of believers are caught up in the stereotype, but the onus is not on liberal atheists to change the message, but the liberal believers to shun the extremists and marginalize those with a message of hate."
Iamcoyote, I absolutely agree with that statement. As I said and have said in the past on this Blog, the main stream Christian must accept the responsibility for responding to the negative picture of Christians. Sometimes I feel about the Christians as I do about the Democrats. For Christ's sake, stand up and be counted!
Shorter teabagger: because muslim extremists control governments in the ME, we should ignore the christian extremists trying to gain control of our government.
Even shorter teabagger: I'm stoopid.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 09:22 AMJudith, the christians that actually walk the walk are modelling their beliefs, which pretty much means that since your relationship with Jesus is a personal thing, you don't stand on street corners condemning others outside your faith. I agree, it's difficult to watch the crazies stigmatize the non-crazies. I also agree that the left shouldn't alienate a large percentage of their population by deliberately conflating the two. What can be done? I sure don't know.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 09:29 AMBush and Religion: Anti Christian, Polarizing and Ugly
Dr. Gerry Lower
The Bush administration has coerced virtually every branch of western Christendom in America back into the fold of Old Testament fundamentalism, the entirety of which is pre-Christian in origin, largely anti-Christian in content and historically anti-Christian in practice. Bush's polarization has driven American Christendom into two diametrically-opposed camps. These two camps are separated entirely by moral ground, those preferring a conservative Old Testament vengeance-based morality and those preferring a liberal New Testament compassion-based ethical morality.
I guess this says it better than I could.
http://www.opednews.com/lower031504_bush_religion.htm
"Bagley reminds me of my encounter with friends last night."
Well, Judith, it is nice to know that you maintain friendship with people who differ from you politically.
"... don't bother to educate yourself about the Muslims and their faith."
Actually, I have read several books on Islam, may I suggest a good primer: "Islam In History" by Bernard Lewis.
As to the quotations that you have pulled from the Koran...well, selectively quoting a book is not indicative of being knowledgable regarding the subject matter of the book. It would be very nice if the Muslim world held these selected quotaions to be the foundations for interaction with the non-Muslim world, but unfortunately this is not the case. The Muslim world seeks to impose on the non-Muslim: witness, for example, the recent, global rioting over the cartoons of Mohammed. These rioters were not just a few Muslims but representative of the majority of the population.
"I assume that is a plan you would embrace. To people like you, there is no such thing as 'the innocent.'"
Actually, there is such a thing as "the innocent." Unfortunately, selecting the innocent from the larger population may be an impossible task. I am not one to undertake to accomplish the impossible at the risk of losing the societal structures that allow me to even contemplate the moral imperative of distinguishing between the guilty and the not guilty.
In the Muslim world, the subjugation and killing of non-Muslims is a basic tenant of the faith, and is promoted by the religious leadership.
No it's not. It's a basic tenet of some who are leaders. Has a mighty parallel with Buschco and their followers.
Posted by at February 26, 2006 09:36 AM"Even shorter teabagger: I'm stoopid."
Not necessarily, but you do demonstrate willful ignorance concerning te real threat to the Western World.
Consider: in 2008 there will be an election and a new President will take office in January of 2009. ThisPresident wil be elected by the voting public and be a reflection of public mood.
In January of 2009, Iran will probably have the means of targeting Israel with nuclear weapons and the Islamic leadership of Iran has already made very clear their intent to "wipe Israel off the face of the map." The same mechanism for destroying Israel -- the missiles -- will be able to reach Western Europe.
So you tell me, what is the greater threat: the elected leadership ofthe United States, or Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East?
P.S. It is not "teabagger," it is Bagley. Yourinsistence on mangling is juvinileand does not add to the veracity of your posts.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 09:46 AM"No it's not. It's a basic tenet of some who are leaders. Has a mighty parallel with Buschco and their followers."
And the anonymous poster appears. I wonder who this is and why this person is so reluctant to be identified?
By may I ask, anonymous poster, where is the parallel with "Bushco?" Specifics please. Also, please do cite some mainstream Muslim leaders who do not promote violence against non-Muslims. (Identifying one that preaches at the mosques in Mecca would really lend credibility to your belief that violence against non-Muslims is not a basic tenant of Islam.)
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 09:52 AMSo you tell me, what is the greater threat: the elected leadership ofthe United States, or Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East?
The selected leadership wins hands down, teabagger, since this admin's mishandling of the situation from the moment he took office has created a global instability such that a religious war now seems both intended and inevitable. As for misnaming you, I'm giving you all the respect you're entitled to, which, obviously is not very much, no matter how forcefully you waggle your finger at me. You seem to forget you have no credibility here, no matter how long, yet insubstantial, you make your posts.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 10:22 AMJudith, you're right, anyone could find myriad examples in the bible of exhortations to violence against unbelievers; just as one could find the opposite in the Quran. It all stems from misinterpretation according to the desires of leaders and what their goals are. Bush obviously needs the christian voting bloc to stay loyal, which is why he doles out tokens like faithbased funding and SCOTUS appointments like Mardi Gras beads to the fundies.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 10:26 AMOh, and by the way, teabagger, as long as dAnn Coulter is welcomed on right wing talk shows, publishes books under a right wing press, is invited to speak at right wing conventions, s/he is a Republican spokesvestite no matter how much you try to deny it.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 10:44 AM"The selected leadership wins hands down...."
Such an invalid argument. Perhaps it had some traction after the 2000 election, but there has been another one since then.
"... since this admin's mishandling of the situation from the moment he took office has created a global instability such that a religious war now seems both intended and inevitable."
Do you not recall Islamic attacks on the West prior to the present Administration (Iranian take-over of the US Embassy, 1st attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole, the long history of Palestinians slaughtering Jews), or is it simply that these attacks do not factor into your "reality picture."
"As for misnaming you, I'm giving you all the respect you're entitled to..... You seem to forget you have no credibility here..."
Ahhhh, now I understand: you are the great arbitrator of credibility. An Oracle, in fact.
"...no matter how long, yet insubstantial, you make your posts."
Your inability to respond to the substance of my postings does not mean they are without merit. It simply means that you are unable to address, in any meanigful way, the veracity of the argument.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 10:50 AM"Oh, and by the way, teabagger, as long as dAnn Coulter is welcomed on right wing talk shows, publishes books under a right wing press, is invited to speak at right wing conventions, s/he is a Republican spokesvestite no matter how much you try to deny it."
Ann Coulter spoke at a Republican Convention. I missed that one.
But following your logic, I then suppose that Michael Moore (you remember him - sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic Convention), Randi Rohdes, and Al Frankin are Democratic spokespersons. Right?
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 10:53 AMThe remarks of Bagley: ...you have to find a current example of Christians promoting the murder of non-Christians as one of the fundamental obligations of the faithful..."just because the Muslims do".
Bagley paints with a broad brush and would tar everybody in the Muslim faith. Look, they cannot even agree among themselves about the meaning of the Koran anymore than Primitive Baptists can agree with Hasidic Jews on the meaning of the Old Testament. Loads of references in both "holy" books admonishing killing of the faithless.
I am not enamored of churches generally (nor synagogues or temples or mosques or holy places), so the idea of My God's Bigger Your God (cause he eats Kennel-Ration) is human tripe. Very HUMAN tripe. Religious impulses are being used for political ends to the shame of all religions. It is for that reason that I believe thoughtful Christians need to take a very hard look at themselves now. You know, all the faiths seem to make a promise of "what comes after" the hardship of today. Bagley wants to be "real politik" and worry about survival first and then contemplate his faith at his leisure---or else simply dismiss other faiths as dangerously out-of-control altogether, so crush them.
We are all human enough to fear for our survival, but please don't put that on Christianity or Islamic faith. It is human. It is animal. It is political. It is using religion in an effort to justify human failure and frailty.
Posted by gtash at February 26, 2006 11:04 AMgtash,
A thoughtful post.
However, I do think that you quote me out of context. The original post by pessimist was stretching to equate a single incidence of Christian on Muslim violence as indicative of a vilolent nature underpinning current Christian teachings.
It is not. It is a single incident that has been condemned by Christian ladership. You would have to search far and wide -- and the search would probably be very unsuccessful -- to discover a significant religious figure in mainstream Islam who did not promote the second-class status and resultant violence against non-Muslims.
"We are all human enough to fear for our survival, but please don't put that on Christianity or Islamic faith. It is human. It is animal. It is political. It is using religion in an effort to justify human failure and frailty."
True enough, but my survival (and the survival of my loved ones) is more threatened by Islam than Christianity.
It seems to me the gist of this entire thread is a challenge to your conclusion. You deduce you are less threatened by a generic Christianity than a generic Islam. It seems to me that people on the other side of the argument have been saying we are no safer at all. If we are to assign blame to the "Christian Team" (Team Bush), then embarking on a war of choice to entice and encourage the very kind of Islamic threat you perceive hardly strengthens your safety nor validates your argument.
I don't for a minute think all "Islamic" nations are friendly to American interests. I am human too and I have concerns about very real threats to my safety and my nation's safety. I do not, however, conclude that you fight jihad with jihad to improve our condition---and that, it seems, is what is happening. And in this latter regard, the "In Your Face" wing of Christianity is front and center. I heard it once called the theology of the "Muscular Jesus". I don't have much control over what Muslims believe, nor do I want to. But Christianity is what I was raised with, and I think the "Muscular Jesus" is a bad model for God, and a bad one for foreign policy too.
Posted by gtash at February 26, 2006 11:26 AMAll fundamentalists, of whatever sect, ought to be put on a remote island and nuked.
Posted by God Of War at February 26, 2006 11:30 AMAnd Bagley, if I quioted you out of context, I am sorry--- I was trying to review hastily after being away for a bit---
Posted by gtash at February 26, 2006 11:31 AMI have to concur that Pessimist was baiting the reader. Starting a discussion in a provocative way. I think you will (and have) seen precisely the response he wanted. I am not a student of Nigeria and its sectarian rivalries and violence. The point that Christians did a barbarous "un-Christian" is pathetic, wrongheaded, and decidedly human. The question is whether you allege it to be the justice of Man or of God. (Those of you who are about to say "both"---I feel sorriest for you.)
Posted by gtash at February 26, 2006 11:50 AM"And Bagley, if I quioted you out of context, I am sorry--- I was trying to review hastily after being away for a bit---"
No need to apologize. It is an error that we all make and most of us do not make the error maliciously.
"You deduce you are less threatened by a generic Christianity than a generic Islam."
Very accurate summation. I am, representative of the Western world, far more threatened by Islam - there is no generic Islam that is recognizable to Islamic leaders - than Christianity. A belief in Islam is not simply a private communication with God: it is a public way of life that expects its followers to covert the non-Muslims, or subjugate them, in a very violent manner. Tolerance, free expression, marketplace capitalism, representative democracy, and freedom of religion are not tenants of the Muslim faith. These elements of the Western world are derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs. There are no similar societal structures in the Muslim world and Islam, given its propensities, seeks to eliminate them in the Western world as a mechanism (first) to further insulate the Muslim societies from "Western contamination," and (second) to remove them from all societies as a means of Muslim conversion.
Islam is a threat and has been since the Muslims invaded Europe in the 1st millennium. Wake up and realize this: the Christians did not cause this present conflict with the Muslim world. It is a very old conflict that continues today.
To simply reduce this present battle to Some sort of "Christian fundamentalism" waging war on the peaceful persons of the Muslim world is to deny history and mis-understand the enemy. In this war you do this at the cost of your life or perhaps, only, your freedoms.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 11:58 AMI am aware of the historical outline you use to describe "Islam". I do not agree with the assessment. I will pick this up later. My wife is summoning me to K-mart.
Posted by gtash at February 26, 2006 12:03 PMBut following your logic, I then suppose that Michael Moore (you remember him - sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic Convention), Randi Rohdes, and Al Frankin are Democratic spokespersons. Right?
Ding ding ding! As you are well aware, you trolls have been making that accusation since time immemorial, teabagger. It only took you 50 comments to figure it out, so I guess you're not totally stupid, just slow. And now I'd like you to find a quote from any of those folks advocating violence against their opponents, 'cos I'm reasonably sure Al Franken never said that the only way to talk to a rightie is with a baseball bat, or that Ginsburg should be poisoned, or that the Heritage Foundation building should be bombed. You have admitted that dAnn the man speaks for you. Thank you so much for proving my point.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 12:30 PMThe liberal media has distorted Jesus into some peace-loving fairy. Real men use Jesus as a weapon.
Posted by coal_train at February 26, 2006 02:10 PMBack from K-mart.
I said earlier that Moslem belief (like Christian belief) is not monolithic in nature. The contradictions abound in both "holy" books. I assert that the generalizations about either faith being hostile to the point of extinguishing the other is over-the-top. History shows us better what nations and tribes do to one another. That goes to what I was saying about humans. Pessimist's point was: if you believe the better angels of your nature, put up or shut up. Bagley wants to say Islam is historically bound to exterminate the Infidel or die trying. I don't buy that interpretation of history. It is no more correct that arguing Christianity on the basis of the Crusades is determined by its history to obliterate Islam. I believe nations, on the other hand, have a history of challenging their cultures to rise against one another. And I thought--and continue to think--- America was trying to be different and squelch this impulse through the rule of law.
The argument that America is inherently founded on Christian principles is a questionable argument. Even if it weren't, it is an argument beside the point. If we really believe, for whatever reason, that we have invented a better-mousetrap for governance, it does not matter where it came from and it's success ought not depend on myth-making or hero-worship or countless other things. If America comes to believe that it's way of governing is in fact culture specific--our culture--then it is not exportable, it is not usable by anybody else. If you believe all the fine Bush-babble about exporting freedom and democracy as a noble cause, you have to believe that there is an inherent value in the way we do things that is going to be attractive and useful to other nations. And if you believe that it takes a Christian culture to understand the true meaning of our noble ways, then you might as well declare holy war and skip the fine talk about bringing freedom and democracy to anybody in the Middle East, including Israel.
Politics uses religion and I think this closer to what iamcoyote is saying. We cannot presume to think America is going to alter Islamic faith. We can , however, make a constructive case about altering the behavior of nations--including our own.
I am neither a dumb dolt or evil, and I consider myself a Christian. . . . Just as Bush is building a case for hating liberals, we should be very careful in building hatred for Christians also.
Judith, you are absolutely correct. I think the point of the post (or at least my earlier comments to it) was that Christians do indeed commit atrocities in the name of their religion. All Christians? Of course not.
As for being careful about building hatred for Christians.....I'm an atheist and I'll do you one better! I think we also ought to stand up and recognize the good things many Christian groups do and are doing in politics today, and encourage more progressive and libertarian Christians to help combat the authoritarians within their ranks.
To wit: Here's a group of evangelicals flying in the face of that nut in the White House, speaking out about the need to address global warming. And here's the statement from a creationist on the Ohio School Board who voted not to teach Intelligent Design in science classes. And here's a worthy story about churches across the nation gathering to celebrate Darwin's birthday.
A fair and realistic world view will always recognize, as Margaret Meade so beautifully put it:
Instead of being presented with stereotypes by age, sex, color, class, or religion, children must have the opportunity to learn that within each range, some people are loathsome and some are delightful.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at February 26, 2006 02:54 PMI am going to leave this topic. I enjoyed reading you all. I am going to post something and risk your wrath. It is the cut-n-paste of by a a devout Christian who supports everything about the war in Iraq and Geo Bush. I post it here because some of you have identified the kind of thing about "in your face" Christians that I have grown to despise--their confusion about God and governance.
What is interesting about this post is that its writer was attacked on all sides and she carried on calmly. I thought it was an indication not of her self-righteousness, but her legitimate conviction about the "truth" of what she was saying. If you are a Christian, you need to find a way to talk to someone who says this kind of thing about your God.
(Quote)
I'm joyful at the all of the good God is doing through the U.S.A.'s military in the Middle East. Not only have tyrant governments been thrown out of control, many people are experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives. The reason for the war? God has opened up the Church to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the heart of the devil's playground.
Whether or not the USA fully understood that at the beginning is not the point. God is Sovereign and the Gospel will be spread around the world.
No wonder the "liberal anti-God" in America are so filled with hatred against Bush and the military - - the Kingdom of God has just spilled out into previously "off limits" territory. Much to their chagrin.
Furthermore, the USA is no longer going to go the direction the liberals want. Immorality has reached a point of unacceptability in the Church. The immoral will not be accepted as moral by the Believers. There will be reforms and/or split among American denominations and the Gospel will be spread once again from sea to shining sea. We can see both God's judgment and His mercy through what has happened in the USA since 9/11. Toward what end? That the Gospel message of Jesus Christ spread to everyone.
These are very perilous times. These are very exciting times. All these things must come to pass. Jesus is coming again. We must be purified and cleansed and readied for His Return.
_________________
In Christ,
Cathy
gtash, thank you so much for elaborating on the topic. You make lots of great points. Liveliest Crib, thanks for the links. Margaret Meade's quote was right on.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 03:33 PMPss, thnks fr ths rtcl. spps tht w rlly cn nt mk ny dstnctns f pltcl ‘Chrstnty’ whthr t xsts n th S, th Vtcn, r, s n ths cs, Ngr. s w knw, yng mls, crss cltrs, d lv vlnc; nd thy wll s ny mns t thr dspsl t jstfy vlnc, ncldng th hndy fls rlgn. Lk t r psd-’Chrstns’ f th WH stn: ths bys hv nvr grwn p….Ths G, (ld gngstrs, wll, ld, sft, ft pltcl ld gngstrs) r mr vlnt thn ny Ngrn gngs.
vry pltcl systm thrght hstry hs sd rlgn fr lgtmtn f plcs, slly plcs f pllg. Th nly pssbl xcptn ws sk, th thrd kng f th Mryn dynsty, rnd 260 BC. ftr ths gntlmn mbrcd Bddhsm, th mpr wnt dwn n thr wrttn hstry s rthr pcfl. (Hwvr, w mst rmmbr tht hstry hs tndncy f bng r-wrttn t bnft pstrty n trms f cntrl.) sk s crdtd fr mny xcllnt rfrms. pn hs dth, rtrn t th stts q f vl, nt s bd s th prsnt, ’m sr.
Whl hstry s rplt wth pltcs sng ll frms f rlgn t jstfy vlnc, wsh t pnt t tht wthn th Jwsh rlgn, prr t Chrst, nd wthn th Chrstn rlgn p ntl bt 1988, thr xstd sngl thrd f trth, tr ‘lct,’ tht rprsntd th trth bt Jhvh. Ths grp f ppl hv bn hddn, thrght hstry, blw th hrzn, sb-strctr f Chrstnty whr th spr-strctr rprsnts th vsbl chrch. Th vsbl chrch hrbrd hrtcl dctrns, yt kpt th Bbl cmplt. Tht ws thr nly jb.
My pnt s tht whl rlgns, ll rlgns, r ndd vl, nd rflct mn’s bsc ntr f vl, thr rmns n lmnt f Trth; lbt, vry smll grp. n smll thrd f Trth; mny, mny frwys f chtc flshnss.
Fnlly, Pss, b dvsd tht Cn ws n rgnl mmbr f th ‘chrch.’ Hs scrfc t Jhvh ws rjctd bcs Cn ws rjctd. Jhvh dd nt wnt Cn: h ws nt f Gd’s lct. Cn klld bl bcs h rctd t f jlsy twrd Gd’s chc. Cn cldn’t kll Gd, s h klld wht Gd lvd: bl. Cn ws rbllng gnst Gd whn h klld bl. Ths tdy, w nt tht ll rblln s ltmtly gnst Gd nd Hs dcsns. f y ndrstnd th bv nggt, thn y ndrstnd wht mny ‘thlgns’ fld t ndrstnd thrght hstry.
Lk Cn, vry fls rlgn thrght tm s n ttmpt t crrct Jhvh nd Hs prgrm. D y s?
URcoyote: Living for the "hereafter" is dangerous, when the here and now suffer for it. I see no difference between the "73 virgin vandals", and the "rapture rummys". They have both done a great job of making survival on this planet a real challenge. Religion is for those who can't handle the stark reality that we are nothing more than animated comet crap, and on any given day we will be returned to stationary stardust status.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 26, 2006 05:54 PM"You have admitted that dAnn the man speaks for you. Thank you so much for proving my point."
Specifically, where did I do this? Perhaps you can plow the fields of your fevered dreams and cite the specific?
"...cos I'm reasonably sure Al Franken never said that the only way to talk to a rightie is with a baseball bat"
Actually, Al did a bit on video where he was beating up on a conservative. Randi Rhoades did a piece on her radio program where she alluded to killing the President. (The Secret Service was required to investigate.)
But more to the point, if, as you say, Ann C is a spokesperson for the Republican party are Michael Moore, All Frankin, and Randi Rhoades spokespersons for the Democrats.
Why do you always avoid answering the question? If the question is to difficult, please let me know. I will dumb down the language for your better understanding.
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 06:00 PM"No wonder the "liberal anti-God" in America are so filled with hatred against Bush and the military."
A perfect example of ignorance coming from a so- called Christian (or anyone else for that matter.)
Posted by Judith at February 26, 2006 06:44 PMAs you might know Al Franken is comedian & radio talk show host. What he did was a satire of Ann.
Michael Moore is not a Democrat.
Randi Rhoades is our version of the dope addict Rush.
And with FAUX news you have way more nut jobs on your side.
Now you have to admit Jon Stewart is funny.
What is funny, is Cheney, the first sitting V/P ever, to shoot someone! Go ahead, tell me it was an accident...still just the shame, er, I mean just the same, forever in history it will be Cheney the first sitting V/P ever to shoot someone in the face!
Posted by bbtb at February 26, 2006 06:46 PMGtash and Liveliest Crib, thanks for your postings today. I agree with Iamcoyote, your posts have been enlightening. Love the quote by Meade.
Posted by Judith at February 26, 2006 06:48 PMMy goodness, are the tightie righties' panties still in a bunch over that non-funny skit on Randi Rhodes? It was a bit made up by her writers, she didn't even know it was coming and unlike your spokesvestite, teabagger, she did the honorable thing and apologized. dAnn on the other hand continues her violent talk unabated and uncensured.
bbtb, Randi's not like Rush, who blatantly lies like the addict that he is; Randi goes on facts. You're right, though, Moore's an independent. Al's a democratic voice, to be sure, and I like him a lot. He's funny, knows the issues, and, again, is fact based and more fair than any right wing shrill I've had the misfortune to surf past on the tv. I haven't heard this notorious con-beating skit that has baggie in a tizzy, but again, comedy bit. dAnn doesn't do comedy, even though she pretends she's joking. The point is, while Randi Rhodes took responsibility for a bad comedy bit on her show that apparently has become legend in the right wing world, dAnn Coulter, who has written volumes of unapologetic hate-filled violent fantasies about killing liberals, muslims, gays, etc., is embraced by the Republicans who continue to support her by inviting her on conservative shows, subsidizing bulk sales of her books, etc. It's simple, Republicans refuse to denounce her, so she speaks for them.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 26, 2006 07:28 PMbbtb,
Thank you for your response: but a simple "yes" of "no" answer was all that was required.
" Go ahead, tell me it was an accident..."
Ok. It was just an accident. (See how easy it is to answer a definative question!)
iamcoyote,
"It was a bit made up by her writers, she didn't even know it was coming..."
She read it on the air. Amazing that with a staff of three...3....three!, she is not able to vet the material: and this is a person who presupposes to pontificate on how the President should run the country...with a staff of how many?
A staff of three!
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 07:45 PMcoyote, You are correct, it's getting late. I should have been clear.
She is our (loud) voice of facts, not a lying, hate merchant voice like Rush. Even his EIB (Execellence in Brodcasting) network is just more spun rhetoric that makes me laugh. Nothing like thinking highly of oneself.
Hey Bagley, Who was the first sitting V/P to ever shoot someone? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Posted by bbtb at February 26, 2006 07:55 PMBoy after that I know I have to go to bed! Night all!
Posted by bbtb at February 26, 2006 07:56 PM"Hey Bagley, Who was the first sitting V/P to ever shoot someone? A simple yes or no will suffice."
The question requires that I provide you with a name. I am not aware of any Vice President of the United States whose name was "yes." I am not aware of any Vice President of the United States whose name was "no."
When did "yes" and/or "no" serve as Vice President of the United States? Please do tell. I am always open to learning something new.
However, if you are willing to accept an answer other than "yes" or "no," the last Vice President to shoot someone --at least the last shooting, that I am aware of, to be recorded -- is Aaron Burr, the third Vice Prsident of the United States who engaged in a duel with Alexander Hamilton. Look t up, it is well-known history.
Anything else that I can help you with?
Posted by Bagley at February 26, 2006 08:11 PMGtsh, jst scnnd th blg whn rn nt yr Cthy qt. Cthy s fr rprsnttv f th prvlnt rmnn ‘fr wll,’ (sprtl fr wll; tht s, ths flk frmly blv tht thy hv th blty t ‘chs Gd/gdnss. Ths frm f fls Chrstnty nssts pn mn’s blty t nt nly mt Gd, r ‘ccpt Gd,’ bt ctlly ‘hlp’ Gd nfld thr ntn f Hs slvtn prgrm mch s th crsds f th 10th cntry). nd ths s thr fndtn fr mltry ctn: s f Gd nds thr ssstnc t cntn Hs wrk f slng th lct frm Hs pcmng dstrctn f ths rlty.
Kpng th bv n mnd, nvrthlss Jhvh hs rtnly sd mn’s ndvrs f vl t wrk wthn t cmplt Hs prgrm. ls, kp n mnd tht Gd knws xctly hw nd whn vnts wll fll nd ccr. H s wrkng wthn n pprnt, t s, n pprnt pstn f wknss, whch s n strk cntrst t Hs mst pwrfl crtn ctn f shpng th nvrs n sx dys, nd tht wth nly wrds.
Thrfr, Jhvh’s ‘crwnng’ ccmplshmnt s nt th crtn f th nvrs, bt Hs crtn f Hs ppl, fr H s wrkng wthn mn’s nnt ntr f vl, whch H dd nt crt. Th ‘ppl’ hr wll nt b ‘cnsmmtd’ ntl th nd f ths rlty.
Thlgns, f th Cthy chrt, (fr wll) r nncmbrd wth t lst thr lvls f ndrstndng th Bbl: hstrcl, mrl, nd sprtl. Wrkng frm th hstrcl lvl ln, thy’v mngd t splt nt bt 400 dffrnt dnmntns flng cnfsn f Bblcl Trth. Yt, ths s wht Jhvh wntd; Gd spks bt mkng th Bbl mpssbl fr ny t ndrstnd, xcpt fr Hs ‘lct.’ nd vn thn, th chsn f Gd, (chsn t vd Gd’s dstrctn nd chsn bfr H crtd th nvrs) H ds nt rvl Bblcl nfrmtn ntl th ppntd tm tht H dsrs.
S, ys, whl Cthy s ncrrct n th fc f hr rgmnt, Jhvh my pssbly b wrkng tngntly t hr ssrtn. n thng sh s mst dfntly wrng bt s hr ntn tht th xtrnl chrch s crrntly bng sd by Gd. Th xtrnl chrch hs bn bndnd by Gd, jst s th Jwsh Syngg ws bndnd by Gd wth Chrst’s trmph.
ls, thr r n cntrdctns whtsvr n th Bbl. Thr r fw trnsltr dffclts tht r sy t ndrstnd wth th rgnl Hbrw nd Grk wrk. ftn fnd ‘thlgns’ tht gr wth y, ntrstngly. Nrly ll strt frm th rmnn cnstrct, ths thy rlgt thr rgmnt t th scrp hp f mn-md ds. Thr r fw dnmntns, fr nstnc th Svnth Dy dvntst, tht dd crmnl lws t th mrl lw rlm, (svnth dy sbbth, fr n). Ths typ ss vsns nd thr xtr-Bblcl mn-md srcs f lgtmtn f thr prtclr ‘gspl.’
Frthr, thr s n qstn tht 52 f th 55 sgnrs nd frmrs f th Cnstttn wr ‘vnglcl’ Chrstns. ndd, w hd frly gd scl nstttns, wth th xcptn f th slvry crm, ntl th Cvl Wr.
Fnlly, wld lk t mntn, smwht bldng pn n f yr cncldng pnts, tht r ntn hs bn prdcng, fr th pst 100 yrs, th grtst Gdlss trrrst ntn tht ths plnt hs vr sn, nr wll vr s gn n th ftr, bth ntrnlly nd xtrnlly. W r wtht qstn, th mdrn ‘Bbyln.’ Wht d y thnk Cthy wld sy bt ths?
"One thing she is most definitely wrong about is her notion that the external church is currently being used by God. The external church has been abandoned by God."
Scout, that may very well be true, but I think it is the external church that has abandoned God. Here is what I know. God does not support the killing of people. We would do well to remember that God created ALL PEOPLE, and that includes those we hate.
Posted by Judith at February 27, 2006 01:00 AMGot to admit, my pain meds were kicking in last night and I worded that question wrong.
I'll ask that question again, Bagley. Who is the only sitting V/P to ever shoot somebody?
Aaron Burr was not a sitting V/P, he was already out of office when he shot Hamiliton, that's if you know your history!
Posted by bbtb at February 27, 2006 05:24 AMPerhaps this is a little late, but regarding Bagley's challenge to find examples of Christian theocratic state-endorsed murder of "apostates:"
1) Salem witch trials
2) Spanish inquisition
The reason that one no longer finds examples of Christian state-sponsored murder is that there are no longer any major Christian theocracies. The higher minds have long since driven that faith out of government--and just so. This isn't about Christianity's superiority as a religious philosophy, it's about the ability of society to recognize and contain fanaticism.
Remember, Islam is a full six hundred years younger than Christianity. There hasn't been a sufficient amount of time for that kind of thinking to occur. And with we in the West draining resources from the Middle East like there's no (see Book of Revelations) tomorrow, the chances of an Enlightenment-style upheaval occurring in the near future is nil.
Poverty creates Conflict, creates Poverty, creates Religion, creates Extremism, creates Conflict. Too much?
Posted by Seth at March 13, 2006 02:29 AM