When God is a Monster

“Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

A brave Muslim woman said that in Arabic to Al Jazeera. Read More. Let's hope it sets off a debate and that she is not quickly silenced by those who really believe that 72 virgin crap. The haters with bombs are certainly offended and they tend to think in terms of murder. This woman has more courage than I might have in a similar situation.

She is writing a book. The working title is "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster". I will certainly buy a copy.

Posted by Jack at March 11, 2006 8:48 PM
Comments
Comment #132872

Here is a link to video of her recent appearance, which is mentioned in the article.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #132873

I for one totally agree with the woman’s sentiment. To defend your faith by destroying things says that this faith does not have love for its basis. Would those who practice Christianity be asked to destroy Jewish or Muslim entities if it has been criticized? Definitely not!! It makes Islam a religion of revenge and death rather than a religion of peace and love. The woman is brave to state that publicly. Here is hoping that she will not be silenced by those who would see her as a heretic or a betrayer of their faith.

Posted by: Daniel Hamm at March 11, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #132876

Gosh. Didn’t George Bush tell someone that God had told him to attack Iraq? I must be misremembering.

Now Tony Blair admits he consulted God in his decision.

Doesn’t matter which faith it is.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 11, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #132877
To defend your faith by destroying things says that this faith does not have love for its basis. Would those who practice Christianity be asked to destroy Jewish or Muslim entities if it has been criticized? Definitely not!! It makes Islam a religion of revenge and death rather than a religion of peace and love.

Daniel,

You’re kidding, right? Do you know how much death and destruction has been done in the name of Christianity? If Islam is a religion of revenge and death, then Christianity is a religion of hate and bigotry. God is not the monster, man is.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 11, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #132881

I agree with you guys wholeheartedly, but I wish I could do so without reservations. I wish when I read today in the paper that terrorists captured and tortured innocents that I could in turn call that a barbaric and inhuman practice without being forced to admit that our own government has the same official policy.

Neocon Bushies that applaud this woman should take a good long look at their hypocritical selves in the mirror.

Posted by: Max at March 11, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #132884

“Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches…”

That’s not true. Repeatedly during the Civil Rights Movement white Southerners burned down black churches and terrorized whole communities of black people. Muslims are not the ‘only’ group ever to have resorted to deplorable techniques to defend their beliefs. It’s important to remember that when all the seperations between “us” and “them” are delineated.

There has to be a way out of this conflict other than the worst-case scenario. The situation remains too perilous to stay its present course. The direction of history practically hinges on this region and these groups of people.

Regardless, I do admire the courage of the lady who spoke out. Its good to hear from reasonable muslims from time to time. It seems like the only ones I see on the news these days are the radicals.

Unfortunately, she will probably recieve a Fatwah for this.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 11, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #132885

How about lately, jayjay? Isn’t that argument becoming a bit tread worn? And to Max, do you truly believe that what guys in ‘Frisco bath houses do to each other is comparable to the sawing of heads off of other people?

Posted by: scolex at March 11, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #132886

Max

Do you really make the moral equivalency argument?

Assume you are a perfectly innocent Muslim, how afraid are you really to speak against the U.S. on the streets of Washington. Okay, assume you are a perfectly innocent American, how afraid are you to speak out against the terrorists in a Muslim nation? Whose hands would you rather fall into, the U.S. authorities or a terrorist group in Iraq? For all the accusations against us, we so far have maintained a perfect head to body ratio among the people at Guantanamo.

You really are not afraid of your government - admit it. You know you can say and write whatever you want. That is why you do it. This woman makes a real statement and takes a real risk and you answer with the PC pretend courage of the sophomore leftist. Yes, let’s us well fed Americans stand up and defy those in our own country who will do nothing against us. Let’s accuse them of doing all sorts of things that they wont really do. Let’s pretend to be brave. Let’s look in the mirror and make an ugly face.

In other words, let’s avoid facing the real problem. Yes we are ALL guilty, so that means we can take no serious action. Isn’t that comforting?

Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #132887

To woman marine. First and foremost, I thank you for your service to the rest of us; second, you cannot truly be naive enough to not see the difference, can you?

Posted by: scolex at March 11, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #132888

Thanks for the article, Jack. Read a couple articles, came across this quote from an interview:

“I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others’ right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural…

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran…

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.”

Cool. I like this person. It takes courage to stand up to a religious fanatic. But am I missing something? Wafa Sultan is not a Muslim, correct?

Posted by: phx8 at March 11, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #132890

Max,

Ahh, I haven’t heard any liberal extremism in almost 2 days … it’s nice to see I wasn’t dreaming it up.

Bush is Hitler!!! Bush is the same as the Terrorists!!!!! Why, because he invaded Afghanistan?? I thought we all agreed on that? Or do the libs take that back and now declare that “Neo-Con-ism”?

And which official policy exactly is it that says we torture? Are you talking about Abu Ghraib which caused several people to go to prison … sent there by American military courts??? Or perhaps you mean Gitmo … where the “tortured prisoners” are … get this … gaining weight.

So, again, which policy? Please state the Bill or the Federal Law or the UCMJ which says we endorse torture.

I however endorse torture for extreme scenarios. Otherwise, if your family gets blown up by a terrorist and you found out we had one of the cohorts locked up 48 hours prior … and then you scream “WHY COULDN’T YOU STOP IT??!!” … and then someone will tell you “Well, he admitted he knew all of the crucial details but said he wouldn’t tell us. And, the strange thing is, after we fed him a 7 course meal topped off by a milkshake … you know … he still didn’t want to tell us. Go figure!!! Maybe he was set off by the 300 thread count sheets he was resting in while Agent Smith massaged his lower back?”

Posted by: Ken C. at March 11, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #132891

PHX 8 is right, she is an Arab but not a Muslim. I’m surprised (A) they let her talk as much as she did and (B) no one clubbed her over the head after she was a minute into it.

I hope she has bodyguards!!!

Posted by: Ken C. at March 11, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #132892

JayJay,

You’re going to compare midieval times to now? Really??? “Oh but Christians had the Crusades so they’re just as bad as today’s mainstream and extremist Muslims!!! Argghh Argghh Argghh!!”

Was anything right back then?? Was there any capacity at all to understand a group of people who lived more than a day’s horse ride away from you?? Were any major religious leaders compassionate and understanding of differences back then? Were any Atheist leaders??

Does disavowing religion make you more peaceful? For all those Atheist and agnostics out there who would answer that question with a “Yes” … how many examples would you like me to cite of horrible, malicious, non-religious leaders?? Hey!! I’ll even do this … I’ll stay in the 1900-present bracket and fill up your hands and toes with examples … and I’ll dabble in every continent except North America and Antartica.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 11, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #132893

oops, and Australia …

Posted by: Ken C. at March 11, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #132896

Woman Marine,

You ARE misremembering it. He never said God told him to invade Iraq. He said he looks to God for strength in making the right decisions. It’s at least better than the liberal caucus or some weekly poll!

Posted by: Ken C. at March 11, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #132897

Scolex:

If I am naive at this age, there is no hope :).

Certainly there is a difference, but not by a lot. We have to take some responsibility for what is happening.

I do admire the woman’s courage, but if she were still a practicing Muslim would she say the same?

Aren’t there still churches being burned in the south? We have some serious religious differences here in this country. Wouldn’t be so much of a problem if it didn’t enter into the political arena. Maybe.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 11, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #132898

Phx8

A Muslim by birth and culture. It is the same way many people are Christians. Most Americans, even atheists, have our cultural roots in protestant Christianity.

Beyond that, I don’t think strict Muslims allow anyone to stop being a Muslim.

Her background as a Muslim is what gives her standing. If you or I said that same thing, it would not mean as much (or the same thing).

She is also saying it in Arabic. Most of us can’t do that even if they thought it worth it to put us on Arab TV.

Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #132899

Ken C: I don’t think I am, but I would play hard to find it.

Have you seen me ever post about polls? And I don’t think I have been doing any name calling of any conservatives (or liberals) that I disagree with. I don’t think hystrionics are necessary to get my point across.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 11, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #132900

Ah, found at least a reference to it:

Here

This is not where I first saw it, it’s just a source that showed up when I googled it.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 11, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #132901

ibrahim to wafa; are you a heretic? wafa to ibrahim ;you can say whatever you like!!! wow this lady is incredible! now for the sad part care to wager on the amount of the fatwa!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 11, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #132904

Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies.”

There are a number of logical problems with this statement. First, there are a number of right wing christian groups that are actually terrorist organizations. As well, there is an assumption this very small group of protesters represents the whole. There are several billion Muslims in the world, this example is only a few hundred people. There are bad representatives of every group. If you actually take a look at the Koran, you’ll find it says rather clearly to treat Jews and Christians with respect, as they are fellow children of Abraham. Jesus isn’t just another prophet, hes extremely important, so much so that his return is foretold, just like with the Christians.

There are idiots who misrepresent every group. Does that mean a few hundred people can really tell you where 2 billion stand?

www.iandanger.com/blog

Posted by: iandanger at March 12, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #132906
He never said God told him to invade Iraq. He said he looks to God for strength in making the right decisions.

Ken, womanmarine,

Actually a BBC documentary claims he did. Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs

Nabil Shaath says: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …” And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.’”

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #132909
Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies.”

There are a number of logical problems with this statement. First, there are a number of right wing christian groups that are actually terrorist organizations. As well, there is an assumption this very small group of protesters represents the whole. There are several billion Muslims in the world, this example is only a few hundred people. There are bad representatives of every group. If you actually take a look at the Koran, you’ll find it says rather clearly to treat Jews and Christians with respect, as they are fellow children of Abraham. Jesus isn’t just another prophet, hes extremely important, so much so that his return is foretold, just like with the Christians.

There are idiots who misrepresent every group. Does that mean a few hundred people can really tell you where 2 billion stand?

www.iandanger.com/blog

What about non-Christians/Jews?

Posted by: Amani at March 12, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #132910
Does disavowing religion make you more peaceful? For all those Atheist and agnostics out there who would answer that question with a “Yes” … how many examples would you like me to cite of horrible, malicious, non-religious leaders?? Hey!! I’ll even do this … I’ll stay in the 1900-present bracket and fill up your hands and toes with examples … and I’ll dabble in every continent except North America and Antartica.

Ken,

I’m not sure why you are getting so worked up about my statement. I do not disavow religion and I am not an agnostic or an Atheist, but I do disavow those who will use God to justify their hatred. I really do not need you to cite any examples, hatred is all around us, that is clear. Hatred is Hatred is Hatred.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #132911

“What about non-Christians/Jews?”

something I was considering myself. In terms of religiously based terrorism and other sorts of violence, there was a great deal of atheist violence in China till around when deng shao ping took over. I myself don’t know of any Buddhist terrorists, but I’m pretty selective of whom id actually consider Buddhist, since there were a lot of people, historically, to give money to temples then turn around and act entirely sadistically. I don’t know Indian history or the history of Hinduism well enough to give you examples of Hindu terrorism (hare krishnas bugging you to buy their flowers at the airport doesnt count…wait do they even do that anymore…nevermind)
The real issue is that it is hard to determine what sorts of violence fit into this mold. The colonialism of the Europeans put them in a unique possition as oppressor that no other civilization had possesed on anywhere near the same scale. because of this, resistance to colonialism isnt reasonably considered unjustified violence. At the same time, what is going on now is just a continuation of this same struggle.

At what point does something go from being resistance to being arbitrary violence? Human passions do carry us further than the rights of retribution as a deterrent and repparation allow us. But that is a universal human problem.

Posted by: iandanger at March 12, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #132915

Jay Jay
You’re kidding, right? Do you know how much death and destruction has been done in the name of Christianity?

Your right, it was done in the name of Christianity, but NOT by true Christians.


If Islam is a religion of revenge and death, then Christianity is a religion of hate and bigotry.

Fake Christianity is, not true Christianity.

God is not the monster, man is.

HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 12, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #132918

A good Muslim, a good Arab, a good person
would disavow what the few radical, violent
Muslims do.
A true Christian disavows what a few abortion
clinic bombers, Fred Phelps fanatical followers
and Crusaders did and do.
A true American disavows it’s governments
actions when they believe those actions to be
wrong. Whether it was slavery in the past or
recent wars, it is better to have a nation
where you can openly disavow your governments
actions ( or inaction ) and individuals brave
enough to speak out, even if they’re wrong.

No matter what side of politicals you’re on.
No matter what color or religion or sexual
orientation you are. We are ALL better off if
we question our leaders from time to time. If
we don’t hold our own favorite politians, etc.,
feet to the fire on occasion, they walk all over
us and our values, and we get burned.

I think we can ALL agree on that.

Okay, now you can all go back to snipping at
each other and calling Bush Hitler.

Posted by: Dale G. at March 12, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #132920

Why do so many conservatives make groundless scapegoating comments that are belittling? Is it because self-righteousness supercedes truth? Of course, if this was so, they wouldn’t be able to see it anyway. It will just be deflected back onto the “other”. And they probably won’t see how such a stance has everything to do with this article either.

Posted by: Jonathan Brown at March 12, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #132921

And Liberals too, for that matter.

Posted by: Jonathan Brown at March 12, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #132923

Ahem. God is never a monster. It is the people who misuse Him/Her for their own self-interests who are monsters. And that is certainly not something of which the Muslims have a corner on the market.

Posted by: Tapia at March 12, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #132924

Actually,after looking at womanmarines’link about God telling him to invade Iraq, maybe President Bush is the monster. What a shame, what a shame, what a shame.

Posted by: DivinaCochina at March 12, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #132925

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, “One nation, under God”, or were not offended if someone suggested that it be removed from our Pledge…

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You’ve never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places, or if you have actually protested that very thing…

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You still say “Christmas” instead of “Winter Festival”, or if you wish someone who is not a Christian a “Happy Holiday”, so their feelings are saved…

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You bow your head when someone prays, or if you just remain silent out of respect and courtesy…

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You treat Iraqi War military with great respect, even though you know the war itself is not justified…

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You’ve never burned an American flag, or if you do burn it as a protest against something shameful America is engaged in…

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You know what you believe and you aren’t afraid to say so, no matter who is listening, because that is why we call it “Freedom of Speech”…

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You’d give your last dollar to a friend, or to help someone you don’t know through a trying time…

In order to be a TRUE American, all you have to do is realize that those who disagree with you are also TRUE Americans…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 12, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #132929

You might be a TRUE BIGOTED RACIST FASCIST if: You limit your mind like Marysdude.

Posted by: Aldous at March 12, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #132930

I just wanted to highlight a point that has been made here a few times already. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, 22% of the world’s population.

It should be evident to all that the values or culture of a group of people that large cannot be stereotyped. One can not simply say “Muslims are…” and even hope to describe so much as half of them.

I am currently living in China. Many people do not know this, but about 22million Muslims (about 18% of all Muslims) live in China. In western China, near the Afghanistan border, you can find towns that are majority Muslim.

These guys are not the same as the Arabian Muslims, the Persians, or the Indonesian Muslims. They drink beer and play music, cook bbq(lamb kebobs), and have a relatively loose interpretation of the Koran. Definately not the portrayl of what Muslims are in the American media.

Its important to remember that different places have different people, and this applies to Muslims too.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at March 12, 2006 4:44 AM
Comment #132931

We first have to ask whether most Muslims believe the terrorists or fanatics represent them. If they do not believe this, it’s rather pointless to blame them for notassuming that they need to actively denounce the terrorists to outsiders, 24/7.

I mean, we don’t assume that we need to actively denounce Ann Coulter or Jerry Falwell all the time. The reality is, people assume that folks can examine the evidence for themselves, and read the underlying messages that folks send when they say “we don’t support this particular act”: “We are not like these people.”

We also have to take into account the reticence on the part of Muslims to turn against their own, and their own misgivings about our actions. They may view us and their fanatic as equally bothersome or dangerous folks.

It may not be all that wise to expect cooperation if we are not willing to demonstrate goodwill in substance in the Middle East.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2006 7:46 AM
Comment #132933

Jack’s point was a good one—-would you be more afraid of speaking ill of Islam in the middle East, or of Christianity in the United States.

We all know the answer to this question. It’s rhetorical, so don’t bother suggesting that there is an equivalence. Would you rather be in held captive in Guantanomo or held captive by Islamofascist terrorists? Just ask Tom Fox, a peaceful man who gave up his safety and security to help Iraqis. A peace activist, he was captured, tortured and murdered.

No, the US isn’t perfect by any stretch. Nor is Christianity. But the fervor with which some jump into the fray to defend those who so radically distort Islam by comparing their actions today to actions from years gone by is sad.

The real sadness is that if these folks dare answer the questions I posed, and do so honestly, they can come to no other conclusion but that they are wrong. There is a cognitive dissonance that they experience, and many simply don’t have the intellectual courage to admit their mistakes.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 12, 2006 8:02 AM
Comment #132934

>>You might be a TRUE BIGOTED RACIST FASCIST if: You limit your mind like Marysdude.

Posted by: Aldous at March 12, 2006 04:37 AM

Aldous??? What was that all about? Is someone using Aldous name in their post?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 12, 2006 8:08 AM
Comment #132937

Do not confuse the message and the messenger! Mankind will always disappoint & fall short; God never does.

The God of the Bible, the God I follow & trust, shows us the Light of what it’s really all about…a relationship with Him.

The Koran has been changed & added to over the centuries. (The Biblical Canon closed in the 1500’s and God adds in Revelations a great punishment to anyone who would change or add to His Word). I have read many parts of the Koran and have several Muslim friends who do not agree with the hate it promotes. The Koran tells Muslims to “not take a Gentile/Christian as a friend or you will become a loser like them” - this isn’t what the Bible teaches: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Many people invoke the name of God and have done heinous things in His name - that doesn’t mean God was in it.

So instead of finding excuses, specific current or historical incidences of man being sinful, and finger-pointing at a Bible you may not have read. Ask yourself this: “Am I in a right relationship with God? Where would I go if I died tonight?

That’s the ultimate question…”As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 29:11

Cathy

P.S. I’m not perfect in anyway, I’m just saved because of what Jesus Christ did on the cross for you & me.

Posted by: Cathy at March 12, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #132938

Could it be that “We as a Society” teach our Children that Appeasement and Oppression is the only way to settle our differences? Unwanted Destruction or Harm is wrong no matter how you look at it. So my questions to those who teach Appeasement and/or Oppression is how can you say that one type of voilence is any worse than another?

Christian, Jews, Muslims, or any group that think that they can change the world through death and destryction, please show me in Written History where that has stopped “The Establishment and Powers-that-Be” from doing what they want? No, if the likes of Osama Bin Laden want to prove that they have a better way of Life than prove it by Words and Actions. For all it takes to destroy the Earth is a handful of electrons; however, knowning how to create and control such power is knowledge that Man has yet to consume.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 12, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #132939

I am hoping to get an answer to a question that has bothered me for a while. I hope I can get some good dialogue in this thread. The question is how and why did being a member of the “religious right” become such a bad thing in our society.

I am a member of a Southern Baptist church(although I have not been going in a while, I still hold the beliefs) that is more conservative than most that dont handle snakes(easy now, this is a small joke). We believe that abortion is murder, homosexually is a sin as is premarital sex, drinking and cussing just to name a few. We also believe that we should stand against these things.

The thing we believe most is that there was only one that lived His life without sin and we owe our Salvation to His Grace and His Grace alone. Now that being said, it is hammered every week to us that we never, never, ever have the right to judge anyone. We believe that every day we commit sins and therefore we are no more pure or righteous than anyone else NO MATTER WHAT. So basically if I say that abortion is wrong, I am not and will not judge anyone that has had or preformed one. I have too much sin in my life to be qualified to judge their’s.

I personally cannot take the blame for the Crusades nor the bombings of churches in Birmingham nor bombing abortion clinics because either I wasn’t alive during those times or quite frankly actions like that are not condoned by our belief system. However, we live in a country that has freedoms and responsibilties(you cannot seperate the two). IMHO any person has a right and a responsibility to get laws passed that reflect their views and morals.

I freely admit that at times I get too mad at liberal positions and some liberals, but why is there so much pure hate on both sides and again how/why did my religious beliefs become so evil to so many?

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 12, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #132940

Moral equivalency was a strategy of the old Soviet Union. It was the goal of their disinformation campaign to make people in the west believe that their own system was the moral equivalent of the communism. “Sure the Soviet Union had gulags where millions of people were horribly murdered, but in America during the same period you had scores of lynching,” they would say. “You can’t judge us.”

It was a variation on the “he who is without sin throws the first stone” idea. Nobody is without sin and no system is perfect. Does that mean that until you are perfect, you have no right to find fault with anyone? If you stole a pencil from your employer yesterday, are you the moral equivalent of Ken Lay? In the act, I guess you are, but you don’t believe that, do you?

Of course not. We should not assert in our argument what we don’t believe in our hearts.

I don’t understand why some people have to jump in with the “we are just as bad” argument when they know it is not true and the very fact that they make it shows they know they are wrong. It is like the variation of an old joke.

An American is discussiing freedom with an Iranian/N Korean/Syrian (fill in your favorite anti-American despot). The American says:

“We have freedom in the U.S. I can go to the middle of Washington and say Bush is an idiot.”

The Iranian answers, “That’s nothing. I can go to the middle of Tehran town and say Bush is an idiot even louder.”

Moral equivalency is the strategy of lots of bad guys. If they can make you think you have no right to judge them, they win. If we recognize shades of grey, we must see that some are much darker than others.

Posted by: Jack at March 12, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #132941

Apologies, Marysdude. I just have a problem with people who require conformity to be considered “American”.

In any case, did anyone else notice that Jack’s article comes from Al Jazeera? That’s the same newspaper the GOP wanted to bomb. Curious an Arab Media would be better than Fox News.

Posted by: Aldous at March 12, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #132942

Nicely put Stephen.

Also Wafa Sultan should be commended for her efforts, but why is it that I doubt that Jack & his ilk are really interested in using this for anything other than their own self-interested prejudices and tossing in a few tired barbs at Islam while they’re at it. You may not be as brave as her, but why have none of you asked what can you do to make her efforts a little bit easier & make the chances of success better? It’s not about whether or not you are allowed to judge ‘them’, it’s what exactly are you trying to achieve through the act of judging. Are you trying to convince us they are ‘bad guys’? Is this the third grade? ‘Bad guys’ might be useful to give a bunch of marines a little bit of extra courage when they go out on patrol, but that’s all it is useful for. If you’re actually thinking in terms of ‘us’ & ‘them’, guess what? We (all of us) have already lost.

This is also kind of perverse on a day when Slobodan Milosevic finally succeeds in dodging his responsibility (by dying) for the crimes committed in Bosnia (I hope this is recent enough for you jeobagodonuts). Of course the delays in getting him to trial can be put down to the standard 20 year wait for getting round to punishing despots for bad things they do.
We do ask ourselves the questions you want us to jeobagodonuts. Specifically in the Middle East Islamic world there are problems (I mean duh), ultimately they have to fix them. Perhaps we then ask ourselves further questions that you either aren’t informed enough for or don’t want to because they will challenge the comfortable world view you’ve created for yourself (or course this needs to be spiced up with a little paranoia… them Red Indians are massing at the OK Corral aren’t they Jeb).

How’s about showing the ordinary man & woman in the Middle East (& everywhere else) that you aren’t as hypocritical as they think you are.
So now that Milosevic has gotten away, how about doing something about the rest of the criminals (leaders & foot soliders alike) that still hide in (orthodox christian since being subtle wouldn’t work) Serbia, for their crimes in the murder of muslim men & boys, and the organised gang rape of muslim women? (Should I throw in a parody of how serbians are devil spawn?)
Or perhaps you might like to stand up and denounce the Israelis in Hebron who are prepared to honour the grave site of the mass murder who waltzed into the mosque at the tomb of Abraham (common to Jews, Christians & Muslims) and machine gunned them down while they prayed. Is this too difficult for you to do, or do you want to continue to play ‘cowboys & indians’. Do you want to be part of the solution, or do you keep being part of the problem. Well do you?

As for why the religious right has become ‘evil’, if you can tell me why some want to do the same to Islam, maybe I can help you. Oh and it might have something to do with the impression that some (others if not you) want to force everyone else to live your way and no other. Some of us may have had a good long look at what you believe in and decided that if that is really the will of God, then I guess I’ll just have to choose eternal damnation (apologies to Mark Twain).

Posted by: loki at March 12, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #132943

Ha! Another Fox News comment, I love it. Just because they don’t soak their news in a liberal chromium wash doesn’t mean it’s a bad news station.

As a matter of fact, since we all supposedly believe in the voice of the people, Fox News has more listeners than MSNBC, CNN, and the network news combined … there ya have it. They’re the best.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 12, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #132944

JayJay,

BBC (a) slams the Iraq War everyday and (B) cannot vouch for the accuracy of Saath’s quote of Bush.

Actually Saath later recanted his initial meaning of his quote and later said, in paraphrase, “that we understood GWB meant he sought God for the courage to make the right decisions”. Hardly anything to cause one to run naked down the street while waving their arms haphazardly in the air screaming for help.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 12, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #132945

Also… it is not true that Arab-Americans in this country can criticize the Administration. The repercussions of doing so are quite severe and will make even Jack hesitate.

Posted by: Aldous at March 12, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #132946

“Fox News has more listeners than MSNBC, CNN, and the network news combined” I know your type doesn’t deal much in reality or with facts, but do you have any evidence which supports this claim? Evidence that comes from a valid source? Didn’t think so.

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at March 12, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #132947

Good post Jack.

It takes a special woman and a special individual to stand up and make a statement like that in a society that hasn’t historically respected the opinions of their female citizens.

All of civilization can take a lesson from her, not just the muslims.

Posted by: tree hugger at March 12, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #132950

Ken C

As a matter of fact, since we all supposedly believe in the voice of the people, Fox News has more listeners than MSNBC, CNN, and the network news combined … there ya have it. They’re the best.
Check your facts. Two serious mistakes in one paragraph, dude:

1. You have confused popularity with quality. Just because something is popular, doesn’t make it “the best”. For example, “Love Story” was one of the best-selling novels of its day and age, but very few people were stupid enough to claim that it was a great novel.

2. Faux News’ ratings are NOTHING compared to the network news. Fox gets something like 2 million viewers. ABC News, the weakest of the three major networks, gets OVER 9 MILLION VIEWERS. Furthermore, Faux News’ ratings have been dropping steadily. Bill O’Lie-ly is so desperate that he’s trumped up a feud with Keith (“he who shall not be named”) Olbermann.

If you can’t get your facts correct, why should anyone care about your opinions?

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 12, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #132952

Here’s an opinion:

All news outlets are now in the ‘tabloid news’ business.

Posted by: bug at March 12, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #132954

Loki:

Nice post. I agree with you whole heartedly on your position throughout your writing, except for parts of the last paragraph.

First, I dont pretend to represent any church or other group. As a matter of fact, I disagree on some minor doctorines of my church. I do believe that other religions are false, else I couldnt believe mine is true. But that in no way means that I believe that my religion should be forced on you or anyone else nor does it mean that I condemn others for their beliefs. I have been taught and believe that all men and women have the will and responsibility to choose their beliefs for themselves and in this respect are only answerable to God.

I am curious to see in your opinion how I(or others) am forcing my religion on you. Thanks

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 12, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #132962

Elliott bay……Fox news is the highest rated CABLE news network. But you can watch your drive buy media for free.

Posted by: nrh at March 12, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #132963

Jack,

All I’m saying is that if you are holding people in jail, are torturing them, and know they are innocent, it kind of crimps your style when it comes to complaining about the enemy using similar tactics.

So how much torture of innocent people is okay by you? Where do you draw this line?

Answer a question for me: Waterboarding is defined as being “bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.” Do you call this technique torture when it is used against U.S. soldiers? If note, what do you call it?

For the record, yes, I would rather be tortured by Americans who would I am sure would be softer on me and possibly not kill or rape me (though my understanding is this has happened). However, as long as we are condoning torture as a legitimate way of handling prisoners we lose all our high ground and a lot of ability to complain without sounding like hypocrites, for instance, your ridiculous statement (I paraphrase) “but we torture so much nicer than they do! It’s totally different!”

Posted by: Max at March 12, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #132965

If Bushies had real balls they would follow this woman’s example and call for an end to the American policy of torturing prisoners. They would hold their president accountable to the law and not place him above it.

Posted by: Max at March 12, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #132966
The question is how and why did being a member of the “religious right” become such a bad thing in our society.

submarinesforever,

The answer to that question is quite simple. It is about respect, oppression, and the “holier-than-thou” attitude of the religious right. The religious right is not satisfied to practice their beliefs; they feel that everyone should believe as they do. A great majority on the religious right tries to impose their idea of morality on others.

Now, I am not saying that you engage in these activities yourself or that all on the right side of religion feel this way, but there is a large group on that side that do.

I consider myself a Christian, but I see the bible and spirituality quite differently than someone on the religious right. Does that make my beliefs wrong? Who is to say that your beliefs are right?

Unfortunately, understanding the Bible is not as straightforward as some would like you to believe. You can take it as a literal, inerrant work, or you can see beyond the letters written and see the hidden message that is truly protected by God through the Spirit. Man wrote the Bible. By taking a literal view of the Bible, you are putting your faith in man, not God. Once you put your faith in God and seek the truth, he will reveal it.

We need to have respect for each other’s beliefs. When you try to oppress a group of people based on your interpretation of the Bible, then that respect goes out the window.

That is my beleif and I would never think of trying to impose it on others. I respect those of a more traditional belief, but I do not respect it when those beliefs are used to suppress others.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #132967

Just because someone is more hateful than yourself, that does not justify your own hate.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #132969

Submarinesforever:

We also believe that we should stand against these things.

and

IMHO any person has a right and a responsibility to get laws passed that reflect their views and morals.

Perhaps you don’t quite understand the objections? This is viewed by many as legislating your religious views on others. I hope you can see the connection there.

It’s one thing to stand against something with education and persuasion, it’s entirely something else to try to legislate your religious views, particularly when they are not universally shared, even among Christians.

I want people to WANT to believe what I believe, I don’t think legislation forcing them to act on my beliefs is the way to go. I also think God knows the difference. I think God wants us to persuade and show by our words and actions what we believe in an attempt to convince. He knows what is in all our hearts.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 12, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #132973

You neo-libazi’s are trying to impose your beliefs on everyone else. I just don’t see the difference between what you speak against and what you speak for. It is all the same just a different side.

Posted by: nunya at March 12, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #132975

nunya:

Speak for yourself, wingnut. Liberals are not the ones trying to ban this and ban that. Liberals are not the ones trying to turn America into one happy white christian theocracy.

To be a Liberal is to respect an individual’s rights.

Posted by: Aldous at March 12, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #132979

nunya,

What is a neo-libazi? If you talking about liberals, then please explain how we impose our beliefs on everyone else. I have a feeling it’s kinda like that whole absence of religion is a religion crap. Equality does not equal oppression. You are free to believe what you wish, but please have respect and allow others their beliefs. You cannot prove that your beliefs are correct anymore than you can prove mine are incorrect.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #132980

Max you cannot win a war by trying to maintain the political high ground. You win by killing more of them than they do of you. We certainly have the firepower all we need is the will to win which I am sorry to say is sorely lacking in our so called leaders. If the only way to gain info. is to torture then Im all for it. They will torture us either way. Who gives a crap about the opinion of the rest of the world? They will come around to our way of thinking when we win.

Posted by: jc at March 12, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #132981

jc,

“They will come around to our way of thinking when we win.”

How can we be sure that “our way of thinking” is the way that is best for the world?

“Max you cannot win a war by trying to maintain the political high ground.”

Yet we say that we have the moral high ground?

And, oh BTW, who gave us that moral authority?

Posted by: Rocky at March 12, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #132982

jc,

That is the saddest thing I have ever read here. The side that kills the most is the winner? Do you really value human life so little? We know the terrorists of 9/11 gave no value to life, but is that who we have become? Them?

Nobody ever wins a war.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #132983

>>They will torture us either way. Who gives a crap about the opinion of the rest of the world? They will come around to our way of thinking when we win.

Posted by: jc at March 12, 2006 03:38 PM

jc,

Certainly not Cheney/Bush, he doesn’t care about anyone elses opinion.

You are saying, “The school yard bully WINS!!!”. The world should bow down to the bully?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 12, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #132985

nrh,
I realize that Faux News is the highest rated cable channel, but that isn’t what Ken C said. He said Faux News had higher ratings “than MSNBC, CNN, and the network news combined”. He said it was a “matter of fact” - but he got the facts wrong.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 12, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #132987
He said Faux News had higher ratings “than MSNBC, CNN, and the network news combined”. He said it was a “matter of fact” - but he got the facts wrong.

What difference does it make how high or low Fox news’ ratings are? Just because they have a large audiance doesn’t make them right.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #132989

JC,

Who gives a crap about the opinion of the rest of the world? They will come around to our way of thinking when we win.

This is the Bush attitude and is why 90% of the Arab world is lining up to fight us. They don’t see us as the good guys, and our case that we are gets weaker and weaker. If we fail to convince the Arab world that we are on the side of right we lose this war.

Posted by: Max at March 12, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #132993
Max you cannot win a war by trying to maintain the political high ground. You win by killing more of them than they do of you. We certainly have the firepower all we need is the will to win which I am sorry to say is sorely lacking in our so called leaders. If the only way to gain info. is to torture then Im all for it. They will torture us either way. Who gives a crap about the opinion of the rest of the world? They will come around to our way of thinking when we win.

Aye, JC, but the question is what we will win. Hell isn’t much of an inheritance. Ever read “Heart of Darkness”?

Posted by: Amani at March 12, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #132994

max can prove with evidence that 90% of the arab world are fighting us?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 12, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #132997

jc,
Seems enough people have responded to you. In fact you’re so far off the mark I’m half thinking you’re more troll than really saying what you think, at least I hope so. Let me just add that ‘hearts & minds’ should be the objective, not body count. I mean Vietnam should have been the definitive lesson on that point.

submarinesforever,
I don’t want to go too far off the subject of this thread, but I basically agree with others who have responded to you. Say on homosexuality we just disagree completely. Live & let live I say… and no this doesn’t lead to the destruction of society. Denying those who want to take part in the church is more likely to do that.
By way of disclosure, I’m a lapsed Catholic of the jesuit variety (you know with the bad habits like thinking for yourself). I actually think/believe that abortion is a moral sin (contraception & the embrace of natural desire isn’t though, thus I lapse), this is my value system though. I still support the rights of people (and in practical terms, women) to make their own choices. There are a few basic reasons for this, the easy one is that the prohibition way has already been tried, it didn’t work. Also this is a core tenant of liberal philosophy (& not the cartoon version of liberals, but the one that the founding fathers used to establish the USA as the outstanding success it has become).
You cannot tell me there aren’t those from the religious right who aren’t trying to impose their belief system on everyone else through the law. If you disagree with them, then stand up. I for one would like to see a little disunity among the religious right, then I will be prepared not to paint all of them with one brush.

Bottom line though, is I just don’t think many, if not most of these ‘talking points’ are important enough to be given the profile they receive (yup I force myself to watch Fox News, I think the key is to try and get information from as many sources as possible & the truth will be somewhere inbetween. Though with Fox I only last as long as my incredulity does). The primary reason they are out there is to drive people to the polls, just like the left fearmongers in the workforce over wages & jobs. You’re being used people!
You say you’re Southern Baptist, so let me suggest one thing that I think is way more important than the stock standard issues. Inter-racial marriage. Does your church have a position? Are you a mainly white congregation or a black one? Why do there seem to be none that can’t be classed one way or the other? If there is a stance on this, why are the rest of us not hearing about it? I put it to you that standing up on this one issue is of more benefit to society than all your other moral crusades put together. Notice I carefully didn’t say what my position was, but it shouldn’t be hard to guess. (once again I apologise for going OT)

Posted by: loki at March 12, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #133007

I was excited to see that after several posts and refuting several points, the only thing rebutted was the Fox News issue. Let’s face it, if they were free like the networks they would trounce everyone.

BUT! Whoever said it was right when they said “Just because something is popular doesn’t make it right” ….. YES! I AGREE! THANK YOU FOR MAKING ONE OF MY PERENNIAL POINTS THAT WEEKLY POLLS ARE AS VITAL AS HOT COCOA WITHOUT THE CHOCOLATE.

And if liberals think they’re pure and don’t try to impose their views on people, wow!!! … not being able to sing “Silent Night” at a Christmas Play, disallowing military recruiters access to colleges, forcing Affirmative Action quotas (I agree with them on a moral ground but not a Constitutional ground . . and they were indeed forced on EVERYONE . . college acceptances and jobs based on color of skin), disallowing free speech at colleges by setting up confrontational rallies vs. anyone with a view other than mainstream or extremist left views … Yes, the holier than thou act (in a secular way of course) is wearisome …

Posted by: Ken C. at March 12, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #133008

JayJay

You said “Nobody ever wins a war.”

I knew my history books made up VE and VJ day … I knew it!!!!!!

You do win wars. It might be with a lot of heart ache but you can win them … let us hope that our moral fiber never decays so much in this country that we deem nothing worth standing up and fighting for it. Unfortunately, sometimes I think we’re very close to that sad, defeatist attitude.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 12, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #133009

Max

We punish the people who torture. We do not torture people we know or believe to be innocent people. We do not torture as a form of punishment.

There is a definition problem of torture. My general rule of thumb is that anything that you might experience in tourist class trans Atlantic flight is not torture. And I am suspicious of the term for anything that doesn’t cause actual injuries.

Posted by: Jack at March 12, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #133013

Jack,

“My general rule of thumb is that anything that you might experience in tourist class trans Atlantic flight is not torture.”

You obviously haven’t been on the San Francisco to Shanghi, China Eastern flight.

Posted by: Rocky at March 12, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #133018

I thought the ‘War on Christmas’ thing was done to death in a previous post - I remember a general consensus that the whole thing was silly, and that being stupid is shared in equal amounts across the entire political spectrum.
The military recruitment thing has a history of its own. Plus I think the Supreme Court just smacked them down unanimously, I’m not sure, I’m no expert on this one.
I agree that Affirmative Action is crude, but it’s like liberal democracy (remember not the Fox News definition of the L-word). It may not be that great, but it’s the best we can do for now.
As for whether college students need to be taken 100% seriously. I mean please, what were you like at that age. At least some of them will get a clue & a little bit smarter & at least they’re involved & not soaking in beer 24/7.

Can liberals be holier than thou. Yes. Is it annoying. Yes. Especially when they’re the sort of liberals who use it to appease their own conscience so they don’t have to feel guilty and don’t follow through on whatever they get worked up about this week. I don’t think the left has any lack of doing it’s own infighting, in fact we’re rather good at it.

Posted by: loki at March 12, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #133021

max can prove with evidence that 90% of the arab world are fighting us?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 12, 2006 07:07 PM

Can you prove they’re not?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 12, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #133023

Ken C.,

Nice sarcasm. We can declare victory, but we have won nothing. War is not a game to be won or lost. War is a last resort defense to restore stability. Some wars are necessary to ensure security and some are born out of ignorance and intolerance. Anyone that uses a body count to determine a war win has blood on his or her hands.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #133024
Especially when they’re the sort of liberals who use it to appease their own conscience so they don’t have to feel guilty and don’t follow through on whatever they get worked up about this week. I don’t think the left has any lack of doing it’s own infighting, in fact we’re rather good at it. Posted by: loki at March 12, 2006 08:58 PM

loki, Could you please provide some examples of this?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #133025
It might be with a lot of heart ache but you can win them … let us hope that our moral fiber never decays so much in this country that we deem nothing worth standing up and fighting for it. Unfortunately, sometimes I think we’re very close to that sad, defeatist attitude.

Ken,

Advocating fighting a necessary war to defend ourselves, and only as long as it takes to restore stability is not a [*defeatist attitude]. Our moral fiber is determined by how much we value a human life. Is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi life? Was it necessary to decimate thousands in the name of a few wackjobs? It is easy to st back and act all holier than thou when you don’t have to see the death and destruction being waged in our collective name- The United States of America.

There is a time when it is worth standing up and fighting for it, and there is a time when it is worth standing up and fighting against it. When that time comes depends on our values.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #133026

Jack,

So if our soldiers are waterboarded, put in stress positions, or denied sleep you don’t feel that’s torture? Excuse me, but I think that’s quite unpatriotic of you.

Ken Brown,

Sorry I don’t have time to look it up right now, but if you seriously believe the Arab world feels positively about the United States then I don’t think you’ve been paying attention.

Posted by: Max at March 12, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #133027
Unfortunately, sometimes I think we’re very close to that sad, defeatist attitude.

Ken,

Do you know what is sad? When you look at a war as something to win or lose, rather than by what good or bad it has done. We have accomplished both in Iraq, and we will not be able to classify a victory there as a “win.” The good we have done will lead us to an end, but the bad we have done will haunt us long after we have redeployed. You may call this a [*defeatist attitude], I call it looking at the situation realistically.

*Bushism

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 12, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #133030

ron do really think so!he made the claim not me!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 12, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #133033

max, i think we all have been paying attention, other words you dont have the answer? for my question that i asked you?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 12, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #133035

Max

Soldiers who are in uniform and whose countries are signatories of the Geneva convention are different from terrorists and criminals targeting and hiding among civilian populations.

If the terrorist caught the equivelent (i.e. someone who had inflitrated their group by posing as one of them) I don’t expect they would keep him both a prisoner and alive at the same time.

In any case, do you seriously believe that an American soldier who fell into the hands of the terrorist would be treated with any concern at all?

Posted by: Jack at March 12, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #133036

Rodney,
I really don’t think either one of yaall can prove either way. But I would tend to lean toward that they are.
The Muslim religion teaches that anyone that’s not Muslim is to either subject gated or destroyed. Sense the US gives the freedom to choose what religion you do or do not practice they consider us an enemy. That would mean they’re fighting us.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 12, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #133037

ron i quess i am a dreamer. i would to think that the saber rattling was comparable to soviet bloc other words when the wall came down they were not so bad after all! i dont underestimate the hate there is enough of that on every side.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 12, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #133043

submarinesforever,

You are completely entitled to your opininion. I am entitled to mine. I happen to find abortion funny. I think it is amusing. I have gay friends, I love them, and if someone ever tried to, say, kill them, I would probably not be able to maintain my pacifist ways, if you get my meaning. The great thing about America is we all get to have our views. The other great thing is that the government is supposed to stay out of our lives unless it involves matters of public wellbeing, and all people are supposed to be treated equally. Thats the whole point. Now, things have changed a lot over the years, and of course the entire thing was done wrong from the start (slavery), but getting over that has made the importance of protecting minorities even more relevant. You are entitled to thinking that swearing and having sex with memebers of the same sex should be illegal. I get to make jokes about mandatory abortions and various other things that make me laugh. Posse Comatetus gets to think that eventually they will take power and push the “mud races” out of the country, and kill off the jews especially since they are somehow the offspring of satan, ushering in the final return of their lord and savior jesus christ. But what really matters is that there are laws saying, no matter who you are, who you have sex with, what your skin looks like, and what god you pray to/dont pray to, you get treated the same. Limited government is our system, the reason I can’t stand the liberalism that is the religious rights posturing is that it means killing all those wonderful freedoms in the name of a book none of you have ever read in its original language.

Go learn greek and hebrew, spend a few years going over the documents in their earliest surviving languages. Then interpret your beliefs from them. Until then, dont assume what you know is the word of G*d (apparantly he really doesnt like having his name written down, not sure why, but hey, who can know, he is, after all, more perfect than anything else. meaning his perfect sense of humor probably laughs at my hilarous dead fetus jokes)

love,
iandanger.

moving on….

JC, Buddy, WOOOOW:

“you cannot win a war by trying to maintain the political high ground. You win by killing more of them than they do of you. We certainly have the firepower all we need is the will to win which I am sorry to say is sorely lacking in our so called leaders. If the only way to gain info. is to torture then Im all for it.”

What you don’t realize, and I think this is one of our major problems, is that we aren’t at war.
This is not us against them. This is not the USA vs. Al Queda. This is the United States being subjected to a form of violent crime that has been common since the seventies and even before (anarchists used to bomb stuff all the time). A war is between two nations (and might I add a war isn’t even to attrition, it is usually until one side has enough strategic advantage to guarantee destruction of the other), terrorism is a method.

At best, we are actively pursuing Al Queda, this is really what most of our leaders talk about when they refference the “Global War on Terrorism.” You can’t stop terrorism after all, because anyone can commit an act of terrorism at any time. We supported contra armies in the eighties that fought against the sandinistas…by killing villagers until they voted the way the USA wanted them to. That is terrorism. Terror is possible by anyone, white black yellow red green or purple (but not orange, no, the orange people aren’t capable of it. bastards.) Rather, we are pursing Al Queda, but what is Al Queda. Al Queda is a loose network of affiliated organizations, operating independently, but out of solidarity networking to provide assistance to others and spread money around. This isn’t an army, this is a crime network connecting various gangs. Theyre very intellegent, very well educated, and very well funded. We are not going to simply kill them until they stop, there will always be more radicals to fight the fight, Israel has experienced this first hand, they have tried their hardest to simply kill their way through the leadership of every group that has attacked them, and the attacks never stop.

Fighting terrorism is much more complicated than blowing up buildings. And the torture comment, ask anyone who’s been there, torture just gets you useless information, because you can’t know if any of it is even remotely true.

I recomend you drink a cup of tea and think about this issue. It affects everyone. Okay? just calm down.

www.iandanger.com/blog

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #133045

“I really don’t think either one of yaall can prove either way. But I would tend to lean toward that they are.
The Muslim religion teaches that anyone that’s not Muslim is to either subject gated or destroyed. Sense the US gives the freedom to choose what religion you do or do not practice they consider us an enemy. That would mean they’re fighting us.”

That is not what Islam teaches, this is a common misconception. The Koran is a continuation of the bible, both the old and new testaments. It specifically states that the fellow children of Abraham (jews, and through some majic of the process of folloing jesus, the christians) are not to be harmed. In actuality the Jews and the Muslims got on quite well till about 1948-50 when the british parititioned Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, into 21 bickering principalities, and then tried to sepparate the holy land into two states.

Islam is a peaceful religion, anyone telling you otherwise hasnt read much of the Koran, or is a nutjob like Osama. There is only one difference between Christians and Muslims, Christians believe Jesus died, was returned to life, and then was risen up to heaven someday to return. Muslims believe that jesus was tortured, but that he was not killed on the cross, rather god took him directly into heaven, someday to return.

question: Are people really killing each other about an event there is no dirrect evidence on? answer: yes.

Would god like this? I sure hope not.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #133046

Iandanger:

If what you say about Islam is true, who are the “infidels” I keep hearing that are to be killed?

And what event are people killing each other about? You lost me there.

Thanks.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #133047

iandanger thank you for your vast knowledge! another point the sephardim also did quite well under islam for hundreds and hundreds of years. until…..

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #133048

“If what you say about Islam is true, who are the “infidels” I keep hearing that are to be killed?

And what event are people killing each other about? You lost me there.”

Islam is a religion of peace, anyone saying otherwise is basing their opinions on something other than the Koran, which has always been the problem with most religions. The Koran itself does not advocate killing nonbelievers or those who refuse to convert. Rather, the idea of killing infidels is a remnant of the crusades and those related conflicts. to quote the koran:

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error.”
Quran 2:256

Many sects follow later texts, and believe in later prophets, but this isn’t really in line with the Koran’s general message. As it is, it is supposed to be the final and perfect religious text, so anything after it is not part of true Islam.

The event I was reffering to is the life, and more specifically the death/end of jesus christ’s time on earth. Since his death/whatever, jesus’ true nature has been hotly debated, and the problem with most of the religious groups is they defend their belief absolutely, while not basing it on anything more than selective reading of texts. No one was sure at first who Jesus was supposed to be, and the accounts of his crucifixion are so contradictory it is no wonder there are conflicts. What doesn’t change is that none of us can actually know for sure what happened out on that golgatha that fateful day, so why should be trust to blind faith, when it is not the word of God we are supposed to trust, but the word of men. People fighting and dying over whether or not Jesus was a man or part of a 3-fold godhead or was made godly through his suffering, and whether or not he actually died. I wouldn’t kill someone for not believing my take on what happened, because I am not sure I know any better than that person.

Its sad really what religion has come.

P.S. In case you were wondering I’m not a follower of a deist religion, I’m a Buddhist who reads far too much, and as such love talking about religion, even if sometimes what happens in the name of religion makes me cringe.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #133050

Iandanger:

Thanks for the info. I appreciate learning. So if I understand you correctly, they are killing each other over Jesus’ role? Is that from the later texts that you referred to?

Your take on this is very interesting. And I agree, it also makes me cringe what people are capable of in the name of religion.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 1:57 AM
Comment #133051

iandanger:

I must say you are the most impressive blogger I have seen here since I joined. Clearly a superior debater and logical to a fault.

However, you’re reasonable and rational way of thinking has now doomed you to being eternally ignored by the Red Column here. I am afraid such is the way of coherent arguments in Bushie Land.

Posted by: Aldous at March 13, 2006 2:16 AM
Comment #133052

Well, I would say most of the killing is done in the name of conversion, which isnt supported in the major religious works. The point is that these sects (jews, christians of various denominations that have fought each other as often as the others, and muslims) all worship the same God. They all feel compelled by the same faith, but the fact that they would kill another person for believing something different is absurd to me, because the differences are usually that of interpretation, meaning that neither can actually say whether they are right. faith in God is one thing, and an essential thing to these religions, but faith in something which is unclear is at best tenuous, and at worst leads to inappropriate conflict.

In the case of Islam, the Sunnah is a later book intended to fit in with the teachings of the Koran and suplement them, but the problem is of course that the Koran is supposed to be complete in and of itself. My point about later books, later works, etc, is that people always come along and try and tell others what the word of God REALLY is, but the point of the main religious works is that you must go to them and take your own understanding, not someone elses. It is easy to take a copy of the Koran and pull out sentences and make it sound like a work of terrorism, but that doesnt mean these individual passages represent the work as a whole, since the interpretations usually pull things out of context.

The problem is really the mixing of the pure intent of the original work (if there is such a thing) with the misguided intentions of individuals.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 2:17 AM
Comment #133057

“iandanger:

I must say you are the most impressive blogger I have seen here since I joined. Clearly a superior debater and logical to a fault.

However, you’re reasonable and rational way of thinking has now doomed you to being eternally ignored by the Red Column here. I am afraid such is the way of coherent arguments in Bushie Land.”

Thank you very much for the compliment. I’ve noticed some of my points getting washed over, but I do hope that from time to time someone will engage my points. Certainly there is little point to practicing one’s rhetorical skills if all you ever do is offer a first rebuttal. I hope there are a few here that are willing to forgo some of the yelling back and forth and engage in serious discusion of the issues at hand.

iandanger

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 3:10 AM
Comment #133059

Loki and Iandanger:

Thanks for not just the words yall(I said Southern Baptist lol)and the tone in which it was delivered. I am sorry that I dont have the time now to reply to you in depth, I must get ready for work. But please check back this evening. I found both to be respectful and full of insight. Thanx.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 13, 2006 5:43 AM
Comment #133060

Rodney

Re our former communist enemies.

We should make a distinction in this hate thing. I hated communism and the Soviet Union, but that didn’t extend to the people of the countries involved (some of whom were my relatives) or even to all those who were the fervent proponents of the system (some of whom were admirable as individuals).

We should hate what terrorist do and since terrorism is a choice, there is nothing wrong with hating the practitioners as long as they are doing it. It does not mean you hate people nearby or those who look like the bad guys.

The inablility to make a distinction is wrong. If you don’t hate terrorist, you probably are misguided. If you hate others because they are associated culturally with them, you are wrong.

The ordinary people of communist countries were the biggest victims of that bankrupt and evil ideology. Similarly, the ordinary Muslims are the biggest victims of radical Islam. If you count up the dead and injured in both those cases that much is clear.

It would be good if we AND they remembered that.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 7:42 AM
Comment #133061

Actually, The Christians have been more violent, and killed more people in the name of G-d than any other religious group. This is not mu opinion, it is a fact. Look at their history, Christians are more intolerant, racist and violent than Islam has been. Islam is just getting the focus today becuase they are currently practicing what Christians do in the not so distant past.

Posted by: Nick (mem beth) at March 13, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #133062

Aldous posted

“Speak for yourself, wingnut. Liberals are not the ones trying to ban this and ban that. Liberals are not the ones trying to turn America into one happy white christian theocracy.

To be a Liberal is to respect an individual’s rights”

Your post was filled with so much respect for free speech I am overwhelmed. As for the banning comment, you neo-libs are banning stuff all the time. I’m not a wingnut I’m a bolt. I think wingnut would have to be reserved for you.

Jay Jay posted

“You are free to believe what you wish, but please have respect and allow others their beliefs. You cannot prove that your beliefs are correct anymore than you can prove mine are incorrect”

You finally understand, see if you can apply the lesson.


Posted by: nunya at March 13, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #133064

JayJay,

Please point out in my previous puost where I said war should be used as a first defense or anything but a last defense. I don’t believe I said anything close to that. Arguing some point you can win but not the point at hand, out of all the debating tactics, that’s certainly one of them.

But you said, “wars” as a last defense or anything else I guess since you offered no qualifiers, were not winnable. That’s just patently untrue and that’s all I was pointing out.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 13, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #133069

jc,

“Max you cannot win a war by trying to maintain the political high ground. You win by killing more of them than they do of you.”

Posted by: jc at March 12, 2006 03:38 PM
Really? Bodycount is the litmus test? I’m pretty sure that’s not true. The South lost the Civil war and the US lost Vietnam despite “killing more of them than they do of you.” (Oh, and the Brits won Bunker hill despite losing over twice as many men as we did.) Killing your opponent is a by-product of working toward an objective; even when it seems that the killing IS the objective.

Isn’t this supposed to be about Wafa Sultan?

Posted by: Fadi at March 13, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #133071

It will be interesting to see how long before someone jumps on this, and I’m not looking for a fight, just adding a personal thought. I have always had mixed ideas about religions in general, but Christianity being the one I was most exposed to. Around the age of 8 or 9, my uncle was studying the ministry and would come to our house nearly every night to share what he had learned that day, and for months on end, he would open the bible and dicuss at length. In case you can’t remember back that far, or don’t have that many years to remember back to….a couple of hours nightly being forced to listen to a subject not at all appealing to an 8 year old, can leave scars. What did stick with me was the idea that the bible , for all intents and purposes, is merely a history book, and as such has been interpreted, misinterpreted, edited, written and re-written more times than could be counted. So, how do we know whose words are published now ?? Then there is the fact that most organized religions want you to believe that they are the best….will be the only saved peoples when life ends. Even the different “branches” within Christianity argue and fight..Catholic, Latter Day Saints, and to the Evangelical and “born agains”.
So, I’ll have mercy on all and end this by saying that what I find gives me strength and hope is that there is some force beyond humanity that can give comfort and try to live my life without causing pain to others and treating them like I would want to be treated.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 13, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #133073

Sandra,

I think you have it right. We also need to remember that it is not G-d who is the monster, it is the religion, it’s leaders, and in the end it’s followers who can be.
Personnaly I like the Talmudic approach. Only G-d knows, we can only do our best at figuring it out. First you talk, then you debate, maybe you argue, but then you eat: together!

Posted by: Dave at March 13, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #133074

Thanks Dave, for not making your response an attack.
It’s scary to come into this blog site and find the two most taboo subjects up for discussion…..politics and religion. Good job……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 13, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #133075

“First you talk, then you debate, maybe you argue, but then you eat: together!”

Ah, diplomacy.

What ever happened to shoot first and let God sort them out?

Posted by: Rocky at March 13, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #133076

Jack and Rodney,

I am working, so I just did a really lazy Google news search. It’s not hard to turn up links. All other nations except ours classify what we do as torture, so again Jack, it’s just you and Bush that think it’s not. Saying terrorists are different from nations and nations are different because of their civilized behavior and that lets us torture them is a pretty circular argument.

Half the US troops say it’s time to come home:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2469.shtml

World agrees Iraq war increased terrorism:
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B3560D04C-9ED4-474B-B5D5-46D7576B0A36%7D&language=EN

More Arabs hate Americans than ever before:
http://www.worldpress.org/1101arabpress_joel.htm

Everyone classifies our techniques, borrowed from the facist nations who used them, not because they were soft but because they were the most direct path to breaking the subject, torture. Every nation. Everyone but Bushies.

Only Bushies could decry in others what they do as a matter of policy. You stood up and said we should torture people, so stand behind it, don’t weasel out and say it’s not torture. Stop flip flopping.

Posted by: Max at March 13, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #133077
“Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

You are kidding right? To infer that people of the Islamic faith are the only ones that Kill, burn and murder in the name of their faith is ludicrous and only shows a level of ignorance that is shameful.

It is obvious this person doesn’t have a clue to the vast numbers of Muslims or Jews murdered by Christians. The Christian body counts over the last 2,000 years are in the tens of millions. They make Adolph Hitler look like an amateur.

Have you ever heard of the term “Host Nailing”? It is a practice that was fabricated by the Catholic Church as an excuse to murder Jews.

In 1298, 628 Jews were killed in Nuremberg after host-nailing rumors spread. That same year, Bavarian knight Rindfleisch exterminated 146 Jewish communities in just six months. In 1337, the entire Jewish population of Deggendorf, Bavaria, was burned after stories of host-nailing became popular. In 1370, nearly all Belgian Jews were killed after someone in Brussels reported seeing a Jew break a communion wafer. Even as late as 1761, Jews were executed in Nancy, France, based upon similar allegations.

Take a read of the book Holy Horrors After reading this I have found that no religion has gone without blood on its hands in it’s God(s) name(s). I have to admit though that the Catholic Church does have the body count market cornered.

Adolf Hitler murdered 6 million Jews - Pope Pious the II - 36 million Jews murdered - and he is a Saint!

Ever hear of the phrase - “Kill them All and let god sort them out.” A lot of you would think that one was invented by the U.S. Marine Corps.

You would be wrong. In 1210 AD, Pope Innocent III unleashed “orders of fire and sword” against a group of heretics throughout Europe, mostly remembered as Cathars. Of special note, at the great city of Beziers, France there was a terrible massacre of heretics. Though the actual count will never be known, it is thought that perhaps 100,000 people were ultimately slaughtered. The soldiers asked the Pope how can we tell the Catholics from the Heretics? We can not tell one from another by their clothing or their faces. If we ask the heretics they will only lie to save their lives. the Pope answered with the phrase in Latin, “Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset” or “Kill them all. God will know His own.”

After a lot of reading one common thread emerges when you review Catholic Saints - there is a huge body count often associated with them. If you don’t believe me - go to a library and start reading. The one thing the Catholic church has been consistent in ever since it was legitimized in Rome - record keeping. The Catholic church has been obsessed with keeping verbose and accurate records. They documented nearly every single soul that was “saved” during the inquisitions, including their testimonies and confessions.

Then as a closing and somber thought about how recent the atrocities go take a look at the connection between the Nazi’s and the Catholic Church: http://www.tenc.net/vatican/cpix.htm

I personally have nothing against religion and I believe that the individual people that follow religion and have religious beliefs are genuinely good people. But the people of all faiths need to be aware of the dark past their religions have had, acknowledge the misdeeds of others and make certain that these things never happen again. I also think it is time that the Catholic church take a lead role in this by removing the saint hood of mass murderers, posthumously excommunicate them and acknowledge the horrors these evil people perpetrated in the name of the church and start leading by example by showing the people that evil is wrong, especially when it is in the name of God.

The Muslims did not invent religious Violence – they are relative new comers to this when compared to Christianity nd other older faiths.

Posted by: Prescott Small at March 13, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #133078

“I want people to WANT to believe what I believe, I don’t think legislation forcing them to act on my beliefs is the way to go”

Do you apply this same logic to:
taxes?
guns?
healthcare?
state funded abortions?
welfare?
death penalty?
etc…

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #133079

Kctim:

No, in my post I thought it was obvious that I was referring to religious beliefs. Sorry you missed that.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #133080

Whats the difference? Both are beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #133082

iandanger
The Koran ISNOT a continuation of the Bible. It has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING in common with the Bible. The Koran was written by a man and nothing to do with God and is not inspired by him. God used men to write the Bible but every word of it is inspired by him.
The difference between Muslims and Christians is a lot more that if Jesus died or not. The Muslims deny he is the son of God and is God. The Christian believe both of these. The Muslims say he was a good man and a prophet. They deny his deity. The Christian faith, and it’s a faith not a religion, doesn’t teach killing anyone that doesn’t believe the way we do. The Muslim religion does. Even if you and other liberals want to deny it.
If the Muslim religion doesn’t teach to kill those that don’t agree with you, then why is it that the different Muslim sects are killing each other? And if they do that to each other, what makes you think that they won’t and aren’t wanting to do the same with us?
The Muslims are not the peaceful folks that the liberal media wants to make out like they are.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 13, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #133083

On the subject of religion, GOD, etc.

I try to obey the scripture verse in:
Ecclesiastes 12:12-13

It goes like this from the KJV translation:

“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

Posted by: tomh at March 13, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #133085

tom,

Why should I fear G-d?

Posted by: Dave at March 13, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #133088

Max

Everyone but us? Once again, we are including paragons of virtue like Iran (which hangs homosexuals) or N. Korea that kills opposition and where putting someone is a prison camp is less scary, since the whole country is already a big prison camp.

I go with my original idea that anything you might experience in a trans Atlantic flight is not torture. Rocky points out that it is even worse when you cross the Pacific.

The other point is that people clearly are not afraid of the U.S. as they were of real bad guys. You write with no fear of consequences. YOu are right. Would you dare write such things in any real dictatorship?

Re the poll, I was reading about that today. There were questions the implied either we should stay forever or make specific pull outs. Nobody wants to stay forever. The President has said that too.

Returning to the orginal post - think of this woman. She speaks out about this subject. She lives in the U.S. All of us are wondering if she will be killed for speaking out and wondering if people will reach out from the Middle East to do that. Everyday people all over the world speak out against George Bush. Nobody really thinks they are in danger. That is the difference between our contrived academic “fear” and a real one.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #133089
It is easy to take a copy of the Koran and pull out sentences and make it sound like a work of terrorism, but that doesnt mean these individual passages represent the work as a whole, since the interpretations usually pull things out of context.

Sounds a lot like what Christians do to justify their hate of homosexuals.

Please point out in my previous puost where I said war should be used as a first defense or anything but a last defense. I don’t believe I said anything close to that.

Ken,

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that you said that. What I said about war being a last resort was part of my opinion of war. I never accused you of saying that war should be a first resort, not even close. You are reading more into it than what is there.

It is obviously going right over your head what I am saying about war not being a win or lose situation. I am not sure what I can say to make you understand. We can declare victory and call it a win, but what have we won in the end? We have won the deaths of thousands of innocent human lives. I personally do not call the lose of innocent human life a win. IMO, War should always be out of necessity, never a game to be won or lost. IMO, the Iraq war was not a war of necessity. We can win a war physically, but have we won the war morally, spiritually, of conscious, emotionally? When death of innocent lives is at stake, I believe that it is wrong on our values level to call it a win. Doing so erodes our moral fiber of going to war in the first place and makes it into a war game where the score is kept by the body count, as jc seems to advocate.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 13, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #133090

Fair question Dave. I would like to ask a similar one.

Tomh, I ask these not to bash, but for a better understanding. Thank you for your time.

Why should I fear YOUR God?
And if I do not, why should it matter to you?

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #133093

“The Koran ISNOT a continuation of the Bible. It has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING in common with the Bible.”

Ron, do you actually know this to be true, have you actually looked into the Koran? Jesus is extremely important, and much of the Koran deals with further expounding on the works of the appostles, especially the book of revelations. Pick up an english translation, give it a read, the Koran is the final revelations of God, handed down to Mohammad, the last of the succession of prophets, which includes Jesus and Moses.

They also believe that Jesus will return to earth to usher in the kingdom of God.

You brought up something that I find rather important, the reason the different sects of Muslims fight each other is because they are following different apocryphal texts that the Koran specifically rejects.

Islam does not preach killing under any circumstances. This is a big problem, because people assume the actions of a few reflect the actual words of the religion. The Koran is a very very clear book, and it is the final word on all issues concerning Islam, if you have an issue with something someone does, and it is not in the Koran, then the action is not Islam.

And Jesus’ divinity was not agreed upon by christians either until Nicea, when one set doctrine was established, and all the others were persecuted out of existence. There is a reason the Unitarian Universalist church exists.

When I talk about religion, I don’t speak as a liberal or a conservative. Religion is a purely independent and accademic pursuit for me.

I wouldn’t disagree that there are a lot of Muslims who are not practicing as the Koran instructs, but the same is true for every religion. I work at a restaurant that sells meat, according to my religion I am not allowed to profit from the suffering of any being, that includes living off of other people’s desire for meat. Does that reflect on Buddhism, or my own character?

iandanger.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #133094

Kctim:

Taxes is a belief?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #133096

womanmarine
How they are collected and what they are used for are based solely on beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #133100

Kctim:

I understand that. I am quite familiar with your feelings on these matters, I have read your posts. I suspect you know the difference I was referring to, and will leave you to them.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #133101

womanmarine
Why don’t you guys like to answer that question?
Is it because the answer contradicts your whole argument on rights and freedom of choice?
If you can expect people to accept and finance what you believe is for the best of society, why is it wrong for others to feel the same way?
How can you condemn religion for pushing its beliefs onto others, when you, yourself, are guilty of doing the exact same thing?

Its cool though. I dont expect ANY of you to finally answer the question but that doesnt mean I’m going to quit asking for an answer.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #133102

JACK, i agree with you. i do hate what they did i also hate what they are doing today! the muslims. i hated what the soviets did. i hated what the nazis did. hell the nazis killed half of my mothers family in holland. my father was a ww2 vet. my point was that it is the leaders of these people that create most of the hate. i dont believe that 90% of arab peoples hate us. yes unfortinally a very large percent of them do hate us . i know what hate is. (when someone writes a nazi sign on your report card in the seventh grade that’s hate )the kid got that from his father, that post i wrote was vauge i should have finished it but i thought what’s the use, i am glad you responded to it. i do admire wafa sultan, the world could use more people like her today, terriosim is a real thing. we seen that when the iraqis were just trying to vote, we see that today when they want to pray someone blows them up, there objective (chaos and fear). and like wafa said you started it! she was speaking to a muslim leader, i also think we should try to separate the good arab peoples from the bad that is very important. painting a brush over all of them in my opinion is wrong .that’s where diplomacy works trying to make friends with the moderate’s you have to try to earn there trust and they have to try to earn our trust, as far as osama and that bunch of killers goes turn the dogs loose.also the media should try to separate the good from the bad. show the world that the women over there should not be treated like cattle, show the world that the children are going back to school and are learning something good instead of learning to kill that is leadership. and my point about the wall coming down was ,what i should have said, most of the people in the east block where there with a knive under there throats. i was in the army stationed in germany from 1974-1976 what little of the east german people we saw they would wave to us or give us a thumbs up sign! you knew where their hearts were.and that me feel like i was there for the right reason. oh yes i do support our troops and i am sorry if i gave anyone the wrong impression. rodney

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #133103

kc

There is no relationship between a religious belief (i.e. faith), which has no basis or oportunity for validation in the physical world vs. the tangible and measurable results of actions such as taxation and its distribution.

Posted by: Dave at March 13, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #133105

>>How can you condemn religion for pushing its beliefs onto others, when you, yourself, are guilty of doing the exact same thing?

Its cool though. I dont expect ANY of you to finally answer the question but that doesnt mean I’m going to quit asking for an answer.


Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 02:53 PM

kc,

Taxes are need for several reasons, i.e., stabilization of infrastructure, national defense, etc. Those things are NOT taken on faith or ‘belief’, but rather common need and common sense.

Religion, on the other hend is needed only by those weak enough morally that they can use the crutch of ‘faith’ in order to justify their sinful ways.

Taxation can be beneficial to all, religion can only be beneficial to the needy. Remember, morality has zero to do with religion.

Your problem with the misuse of taxes has nothing to do with whether they are necessary in the first place, but rather with the way some of them are actually being used.

Enough of an answer?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 13, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #133109

Dave
The relationship is that they BOTH are nothing more than personal beliefs. It is only when a person disagrees that they then scream about forcing religion onto others.
Person A’s belief says that gay marriage is immoral and for the betterment of society, others must be forced to accept these beliefs.
Person B’s belief says that not helping the poor is immoral and for the betterment of society, others must be forced to accept and support these beliefs.

So tell me, anyone, why is it ok to force others to believe as you do, but wrong for others to try and force you to believe as they do?

People may try to use “God is a Monster” for political reasons, but the truth is, beliefs people get from their belief in a God is no different than any other beliefs.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #133115

Dude
“Your problem with the misuse of taxes has nothing to do with whether they are necessary in the first place, but rather with the way some of them are actually being used”

“The way some of them are actually being used” is based on personal beliefs though.

Besides, taxes are just what womanmarine felt would be the easiest to defend when it came to freedom of choice. I know some taxes are required to make our country run. Those are outlined in the Constitution.

“Enough of an answer?”

You did not provide an answer but gave me your opinion instead.
If it is wrong for me to tell you how you should live your life or spend your money, why is it right for you to tell my how to?


Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #133117

Jack,

I’m not sure what you are referring to with the transatlantic flight stuff. It would be pretty easy to torture someone on a flight any number of ways.

When I say every country classifies this stuff as torture I mean every country, including ours, and international law. That what we’re doing over there is torture is pretty old news. Next thing Bushies are going to say there were Al Queda in Iraq pre 9/11.

Is our country better? Of course it is. But if you’ve supported a policy you should stand behind it Jack. And if your only excuse for doing something is that other kids in the room do worse that’s pretty sad. I don’t know what parents would excuse their kid’s behavior if they used that line. If Iran jumped off a bridge would you?

I stand by my claim that Bush created more terrorist enemies in general and didn’t help a thing in Iraq by torturing people. It doesn’t help that we keep hearing that so many people in Guantanamo are completely innocent of anything besides having a similar name to a terrorist, and that our government won’t release all the pictures from Abu Ghraib.

Posted by: Max at March 13, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #133118

Marysdude-

As a “morally weak” person I just can’t help jumping in to support my friend kctim….

We as a country take (in the form of taxes) so that we can support the needs of the common good (borrowing from Hillary’s famous quote). What we take and what we define as needs are based upon our beliefs. You probably believe that it is in the best interest of the country to support some form of welfare, so you support spending for welfare programs with either your vote or through lobbying. Others believe that there should be support for the nuclear family, so there should be tax breaks for married people. Both are imposing their beliefs on others by taking from people like kctim and giving to whichever priority they believe is best for the country. To him (and to me) there is no distinction based on the belief system that supported the taking, there is just a taking.

This is another argument against the Founding Fathers wanting a “wall of separation” between church and state and/or a secular government. If they did, then they certainly would have never instituted a representative republic form of government, as representative governments reflect the beliefs of its people. In the case of the U.S. the prominent belief system is Christianity, and it is, therefore, no surprise to see Christian morals and ideals reflected in our laws and statutes.

And once again a progressive minded person demeans religious people then can’t understand why they don’t vote for progressive candidates. I know, it’s because the elections are rigged….

Posted by: George in SC at March 13, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #133130

>>You did not provide an answer but gave me your opinion instead.

kc,

My opinion IS my answer. When you require more than that you are just being petulant, childish and unresponsive…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 13, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #133131

Max

What I mean by the transAtlantic flight (in tourist class) is that you are cramped, uncomfortable, unable to sleep. If some fat guy sits next to you, you can’t move. If the guy in front of you leans back you can hardly breathe. Some of what passes for torture is no worse than this. Let me give you my own point of view (what I would tolerate).

We should not inflict bodily harm.

We should never torture as a form of punishment (and we don’t)

I have no trouble with making terrorists uncomfortable. And anything that was what you might experience on a long flight counts as discomfort, not torture. I don’t believe severe torture works in most cases, and we can often get the information in other ways.

Torture is not a U.S. policy. We investigate cases of torture and if appropriate punish. It is an Al Qaeda strategy to assert torture has taken place. Every allegation in not a true instance, much like to Koran incident that never really happened.

In the case of terrorists who might have urgent information that could save lives, I would go with Alan Dershowitz (not a Bush supporter, BTW).

The U.S. fought two big wars recently. Nobody is perfect, but considering the small numbers of cases, the record is good. No country in a similar level of activity has a better record. We are better than that.

The proof of this is - as I said - people really are not afraid of U.S. authorities. I have been in places were they were. It is not like that in the U.S.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #133132

>>You probably believe that it is in the best interest of the country to support some form of welfare, so you support spending for welfare programs with either your vote or through lobbying. Others believe that there should be support for the nuclear family, so there should be tax breaks for married people. Both are imposing their beliefs on others by taking from people like kctim and giving to whichever priority they believe is best for the country. To him (and to me) there is no distinction based on the belief system that supported the taking, there is just a taking.

George in SC,

The very act of governance requires a certain amount of imopsition. We ARE a village, and as such have needs that only taxation can provide. Some of those needs are easy to determine and agree to, some are not so easy. That is why we have this representative form of governence, so if the ‘other’ needs get out of hand we can change them. Welfare was changed under Clinton to a degree. Has Cheney/Bush improved on that?

All kc has to do is vote for those whom he thinks will reduce such spending even more. But, if he pays for that in a lowering of morality in governance, be it on his head.

I would vote for someone who would include some form of help for the destitute, but if the same person I’d vote for in that regard would also get us into an unconscienable war, I’d not place my vote against my moral base. Wars, to me, are for the preservation of our nation. Anything else is immoral.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 13, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #133135

Jack:

The little detail you forgot to mention is CHOICE. We CHOOSE to ride in an airplane. since when did the prisoners volunteer to be waterboarded? Do YOU volunteer, Jack?

I am also disgusted by your position that a little torture is ok. A little murder, a little rape. What’s the difference?

Lastly, we have no idea the total number of people tortured by your President. Considering how hard Bush is trying to keep his records secret, it must be pretty high. Do you advocate full disclosure, Jack? Then you can crow about how little the US violated basic human rights. What’s the acceptable rate anyway? Higher than Mugabe, Lower than Milosovic? Kindly give us a quantitative measure of how much a monster Jack can be and still be called a moral man?

Posted by: Aldous at March 13, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #133136

Dave, kctim, et.al
I was not trying to force anybody to accept my way of thinking or beliefs. I was just expressing that statement for others to think about. I apply it to my life and it works fantastically. As to believing in a supreme being that I call GOD and that is my faith, it is neither from weakness nor force. There are many scriptures showing why it is necessary to practice what I practice. That is not saying I am better than anybody else. It is only what the scriptures have taught me to do and practice. I do not try to make anybody to do anything. There is an exception. That is my children. I do not try to make my wife happy. I try to live my life in such a way that she will choose to be happy with me. If she isn’t then I try harder. The scripture I quoted above uses the word FEAR. One of the definitions of FEAR is: respectful dread; awe; reverence. That is the meaning that should be applied to the scripture I quoted. The GOD of creation who resides in heaven does not expect us to be afraid of him if we are doing right. That is where our conscience comes into play. Everybody must decide what is right and wrong in an honest way and apply that to their own lives. If we are not doing right and continue in that path, then on that great and fearful(read being afraid) day one should be concerned. Of course some of you will read into that what ever you want to spin. But the directions are plain and simple; “it is the whole duty of man to obey GOD and keep his commandments”.

Posted by: tomh at March 13, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #133137

iandanger
True Christians have always agreed on the deity of Christ. They didn’t have to wait for the Catholic Church to be formed and decide that Christ is God. They knew that from the beginning.
It’s true a lot of folks don’t practice the religion they claim to believe. While I don’t consider it a reflection on that religion as such, if just about everyone in that religion is doing it, I would have to say that it teaches it.
All I hear coming from the Muslims is hatred toward the Western world and a desire to destroy it. That tells me right there that it must be in their religion to do so.
The Koran ISNOT the inspired Word of God. It ISNOT a continuation of the Bible. It has nothing to do with the Bible in any way. Wasn’t the Koran supposedly written before the Bible was? If so how could it reflect the teaching of the apostles?
Why would God tell a man to love and respect his wife in one book, then in another make her the mans slave? Wouldn’t that be a big inconsistency on Gods part?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 13, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #133138

“My opinion IS my answer. When you require more than that you are just being petulant, childish and unresponsive…”

And refusing to answer the question is being what?
You talked in circles to avoid answering it.

I know how the system works and I do vote accordingly Dude. That is not the issue.

How can you scream about people forcing their religious beliefs onto others, when you, yourself favor forcing your beliefs onto others?

Its not a hard question. I just think the answer scares you.

Posted by: kctim at March 13, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #133140

To those of you that pointed out the bloodshed and atrocities done in the name of Christ, keep in mind that is contrary to Christian Scriptures in the New Testament. Whereas in the Koran murder and mayhem is institutionalized by Koranic Scripture.

As for Bush invading Iraq, whatever reason was given it took down a genocidal murderer. That needed to happen no matter one’s politics or religion.

Posted by: Theway2k at March 13, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #133143

Aldous

I can choose to fly on a plane or not. Terrorists can choose to fly a plane into a building or not. They have a choice to be a terrorist and when they make that choice they give up others.

I don’t think you should imprison or make innocent people uncomfortable. Those cases would be mistakes and should be corrected.

Would you imprison criminals? This is always uncomfortable? It is impossible to carry out any enforcement without making somebody uncomfortable.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #133148

“True Christians have always agreed on the deity of Christ. They didn’t have to wait for the Catholic Church to be formed and decide that Christ is God. They knew that from the beginning.
It’s true a lot of folks don’t practice the religion they claim to believe. While I don’t consider it a reflection on that religion as such, if just about everyone in that religion is doing it, I would have to say that it teaches it.
All I hear coming from the Muslims is hatred toward the Western world and a desire to destroy it. That tells me right there that it must be in their religion to do so.
The Koran ISNOT the inspired Word of God. It ISNOT a continuation of the Bible. It has nothing to do with the Bible in any way. Wasn’t the Koran supposedly written before the Bible was? If so how could it reflect the teaching of the apostles?
Why would God tell a man to love and respect his wife in one book, then in another make her the mans slave? Wouldn’t that be a big inconsistency on Gods part?”

You are again making many many assumptions based on what you see in the middle east applying to the religion of Islam. Islam is ONLY the Koran, the Bible, and the Torrah. The Torrah and the Bible had been corrupted by humans making omissions and mistranslations, and that was why G*d handed down the truth to Mohammad, and it was written as the Koran. No one makes any claims to the Koran being written before either the Bible or the Torrah, as it would make the hundreds of refferences to Mary and Jesus a little difficult to understand. The fact that you don’t realize how important Jesus is to Islam is a sign that you don’t actually know anything about the religion, which is why I recomend you take a look at it. I myself don’t believe in a God at all (i find the concept a bit simple, honestly, the universe is a bit more chaotic in my view), yet I spend a lot of time studying these various religions.

What Islam does provide for is equal treatment of women in all spiritual matters, cultural things like Burkhas don’t come to bear in the Koran itself. One of the real caveats of the Koran is that in the Koran’s depiction of the Garden of Eden, Eve and Adam take of the fruit forbidden by God together, meaning woman is not responsible for original sin.

When it comes to inconsistencies, your own holy texts are full of them. The bible is a veritable wealth of contradictions, and as such it is rather hard to see any accuracy in your point. More importantly, youre ignoring the fact that the actual role of Jesus was not decided on until Nicea, there were many schools of thought, and they were all operating on the same evidence, or lack thereof. The depictions of Christ’s crucifixion are very subjective, and many of the passages involving Christ have multiple layers that dont translate into english. This is something I always mention while dealing with religious discussion, I don’t really care where your personal beliefs lie, you can believe anything you want, but the fact of the matter is, the bible (specifically the new testament, since Christians don’t seem to have nearly as much faith in the old testament) was not written in english, and as such you are reading a document which was first written in Greek, then translated to Latin, and finally translated and retranslated into english.

Regardless of any discussion of Christianity, my point is that you cannot look at the behaviors of individuals as the cannon of a religion. Read the Koran if you so choose: http://www.faizani.com/quran-koran/index.html
(an english translation)
and then talk to me about Islam. In the meanwhile, when it comes to the hate you talk about, do you realize what you are doing is no different from saying that all US soldiers are violent and violate the rights of the people in Iraq. Certainly this happens a lot, but it isnt a reflection on the true possition of most soldiers. There are more than a billion Muslims in the world, if they were all violent and oppressive to women, I don’t think Islam would be the fastest growing religion in the world.

Looking forward to your reply,
www.iandanger.com/blog

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #133149

iandanger

Is Islam growing through conversion or natural increase? Male dominance is a good way to produce children in a society.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #133150

kctim,

The answer you seek is quite simple and old. It is called “We the People”. A religious group may try to foist religion on the people through the government, but if it goes against the will of “we
the people” then it will not be welcome. Now, it is certainly your right to change the hearts and minds of “we the people” but if they really don’t want something, it just won’t happen. People can continue to campaign to make religion part of the government but others are also free to campaign against it.

Gay marriage is a good example, “We the People” have spoken in several states and said we do not want that. OK, but that doesn’t mean that gays and lesbians are going to go back into the closet, they will just continue the fight to change hearts and minds until “We the People” accept homosexuals as Americans instead of second class citizens. They have already made great strides in the last 5 years to make that happen. Now you are free to campaign against them, but you can’t stop them for striving for equality.

Conservatives hate social programs, we have a conservative government in place today, are social programs being cut? Yes and no. Madicare part D is the largest expansion of a social program since the start of Medicare. Social programs are being shuffled around, but they are not being eliminated. Why? Because these are programs that are very popular with “We the People”, and too much tampering will result in political suicide. Politicians must tread lightly.

Now here is the kicker. The SCOTUS and the U.S. Constitution. The majority have the final say on a great many things, but not always. Basic human rights are protected by the Constitution. Of course even then the majority rules if they are able to pass a constitutional amendment.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #133151

“To those of you that pointed out the bloodshed and atrocities done in the name of Christ, keep in mind that is contrary to Christian Scriptures in the New Testament. Whereas in the Koran murder and mayhem is institutionalized by Koranic Scripture.”

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Please read the Koran before trying to claim it is a document that recomends violence and hatred. Also, since Muslims are bound by the commandments of G*d handed to Moses on Mt. Sinai, one of which is thou shalt not kill (or murder depending on your translation) what you are saying is simply absurd.

Go read, stop with the hate speach, because it is completely baseless and a little offensive.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #133152

hey ron i am sure you just made a little error we all can, the old testament was started about 6,000 ago years the new testament was started about 2,006 years ago. the quran came much later about 632ad

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #133154

see.. 6,000 years ago!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #133158

iandanger,

Most people know about Islam the same way they know about Christianity. From what someone else told them.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #133159

“Is Islam growing through conversion or natural increase? Male dominance is a good way to produce children in a society.”

It is one of the fastest growing religions in the United States due to conversion, how about that?

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Islam/islam21.htm

Thats a little dated, but it doesnt matter, rebuking that portion of my point doesnt affect the rest, that islam (submission to god and his instructions in the Koran) is very very egalitarian in its treatment of women.

People following Hadith texts like the Sunnah have some of these requirements codified, but as I have previously stated, anything written outside of the Koran (specifically things written after) is not Islam, and therefore is not worth addressing while discussing Islam.

Am I getting anywhere here?

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #133160

iandanger

There are exactly no contradictions in the Bible!! If you really studied the Bible you would find there are no mistakes, contradictions, confusion, or anything like that. The secret is you have to study the Bible not other men’s writings of their opinion of what the Bible says. Every time somebody tries to use additions or subtractions from the Bible the John 11:35 should be referenced.

Posted by: tomh at March 13, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #133161

Jack,

Can it be that Islam is growing as a reaction to the actions of the Christian west?

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #133162

The reason nobody thinks they are in danger is because in our country it has always been the will of the governed that the president, and every other citizen besides, shall not have the power to endanger or misuse us at his arbitrary, personal discretion. They can seek justice against us only if we have been judged by a jury of our peers, based on sound reason, to have endangered another’s “Inalienable” rights. It’s the reason the president has to follow laws, Jack, and it’s why things like warrantless spying, secret courts, secret prisons, and replacing habeus corpus with “enemy combatant” should be disturbing. We design our laws so that we are not abused by our leaders, not the other way around. When that will collapses we cease to be a free people. This “Contrived academic fear” you so despise is the guardian of our freedom, Jack, and as smart as you are, it puzzles me that you can’t seem to see this.

The woman you write about is the advance guard of a similar will nascent in the arab world, and you are right, if we want to encourage democratic governments with respect for human rights in the region, we need to do all we can to nurture it.

Respects,

-Amani

Posted by: Amani at March 13, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #133163

That should have had a quote above it from Jack’s post:

Posted by: Amani at March 13, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #133164

or not… That’s weird, block quotes aren’t working. Anyway the quote is:

“Everyday people all over the world speak out against George Bush. Nobody really thinks they are in danger. That is the difference between our contrived academic “fear” and a real one.”

Posted by: Amani at March 13, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #133165

THE RELIGON THEMES DONT ADD UP IT A HUMAN THEME THAT DOES! IT WAS MIDDLE EASTERN MEN ARIBS THAT ATACKED US.AND WE ARE DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF HUMANITY TO EXIST WE ASK OUR SOLDIERS TO GO INTO HARMS WAY SO A LOCAL NEWS PERSON CAN LEAK EVER LITTLE THING WE DO SO SOME LIBERL IDIOT CAN SAY IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OR SISUR THE THE PREZ AND AS FOR THOSE COWERDLY REPUBLICANS WHOM JUMP SHIP WHEN IN A STORM HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE CALLED HEROS AND FOR THOSE DEMS WHOM PISS AND MOAN WHEN IF THEY HAD A TRUE SALUTION TO OUR WOOOS THEN START SHOWING IT NOT MOUTHING IT TWO WROUNGS DO NOT A RIGHT MAKE.TAKE RELIGON OUT OF THIS MESS AND SAY WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT POWER MONEY AND WORLD GREED AND ON BOTH SIDES MANS OWN INHUMAITY TOWARDS MAN WILL THE ENAMIE STOP IF WE AS AMERICANS GET ON OUR KNEES AND KISS HIS ASS NO! HE WILL CLEAN THE OTHER CHEKKKK!

Posted by: F.A.STEPHENS SR at March 13, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #133168
There are exactly no contradictions in the Bible!! If you really studied the Bible you would find there are no mistakes, contradictions, confusion, or anything like that.

tomh,

That very well may be true of the original texts in their original Hebrew or Greek, but it certainly is not true of it’s English translation.

The secret is you have to study the Bible not other men’s writings of their opinion of what the Bible says.

Everytime you read the english translation of the Bible you are reading other men’s writing of their opinion of what the original texts say. That is because a perfect translation is not possible. In many instances the traslators not only had to traslate the text but also interpret the text. We know that this has happened. Of course the original autographs are no longer in excistance, but ancient copies are. When those copies are compared with modern translations there are several instances where the translator could have interpreted the text a different way that would have given them a totally different meaning. You can also find places where the traslators (esp in the KJV) have made subtle changes to the order of phrases to change there original meaning.

In addition to studying the Bible it is also worth your time to study the history of the Bible and the time period in which it was written. The problem too often today is that the bible is interpreted in a modern context. However, the Bible was written in a time when customs and traditions were vastly different from today. Context is everything when interpreting the Bible.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #133169

“There are exactly no contradictions in the Bible!! If you really studied the Bible you would find there are no mistakes, contradictions, confusion, or anything like that. The secret is you have to study the Bible not other men’s writings of their opinion of what the Bible says. Every time somebody tries to use additions or subtractions from the Bible the John 11:35 should be referenced.”

I’ve got a book in my room that goes through the major contradictions in the bible in its Latin form, and much of it does not translate into the bible (for example, at one point Jesus uses 3 different forms of the word love while reffering to one of his appostles, one of which means sexual love) since I don’t speak latin, I cannot read the Bible in that language. Regardless, I do read the bible, and there are a number of confusing contradictions, I’ll list a few here:

1. The Bible says that it is a sin to lie, and that the lord commits no deceptions, but then there are numerous instances of lies and deceptions being attributed to the Lord.

2. The Bible says to keep holy the Sabbath then there are numerous moments were the Sabbath is ignored, even by Jesus, but it is considered acceptable.

3. The Bible says we are saved through faith alone, not works, but there are also passages that claim one is saved by their deeds, this is a major problem since being saved is kind of the point of Christianity.

4. The old testament has many verses encouraging slavery, but there are passages that can be interpreted as being against slavery. Kind of confusing.

5. Some passages say that God cannot be responsible for evil, yet at other times the Bible says God is the source of good and evil.

6. Jesus speaks of being a prophet of peace and comming with a sword. There is no way to really reconcile this difference, and has resulted in major splits between different Christians.


Thats just a sampling, and it deals directly with the text of the Bible. I do not claim there is not debate in the Koran, and I don’t think any of these works are actually the work of God, rather I view them as human insight, the whole point of arguing as I have been has been to give more of a Muslim perspective, because youre missing a great deal if you judge a religion without actually knowing anything about it.

www.iandanger.com/blog

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #133170

marysdude, calling marysdude

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #133172

iandanger

You make opinion claims to support your thesis, but you do not cite references. “There are numerous instances of lies and deceptions being attributed to the Lord”. What in the world are you reading or studing? It surely is not the Bible. There is not one reference of the Lord being deceitful or lying.

Posted by: tomh at March 13, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #133173

I know I didn’t, i never intended my post to be an exhaustive discussion of this issue, since it distracts from the real discussion at hand, a discussion of Islam. Here are two instances of God being the source of deception.


II Thessalonians 2:11 “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”

I Kings 22:23 “The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.”

The contradictions in the bible have been discussed at great length in many many works, and some of them (like the book I have upstairs, which is longer than the bible itself due to its exhaustive discussion of the original latin, its translations, and a discussion of the reasons for said contradictions, usually a historical source) deal more with the original language of the document, something which is necessary if people are putting so great a stock in the translations.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #133174

The funny thing is that when Constantine ordered the creation of the Bible, there were hundreds of texts to choose from. While we are not certain what criteria was used to create the Biblical Canon that we have today, we do know that some of those text wound up in the Koran. Some of those texts were thought lost forever, the Gnostic texts, only to be found again in 1945 and 1947. It would be possible for me (or anyone) to take those discarded texts and put together a Canon that would tell a story starting with the discarded text “The Life of Adam and Eve” and ending with “The Apocalypse of Peter”. In effect you could create a whole new religion with a different message than either that of the Bible or the Koran.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #133175

RODNEY
I know the Bible was started around 6,000 years ago. But it seem that a lot of folks, specially those that have no knowledge of religion, think that the Koran was written before the Bible. I based my question and statement on that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 13, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #133177

iandanger
There are NO errors or contradictions in the Bible. This is a lie made up by folks that want to discredit the Bible.
If you would study the Bible itself and not read books written by atheist on it you’d know this.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 13, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #133178

“There are NO errors or contradictions in the Bible. This is a lie made up by folks that want to discredit the Bible.
If you would study the Bible itself and not read books written by atheist on it you’d know this.”

The book I was reffering to is written by a Catholic. Regardless your own inability to look to what I am reffering to is a sign that your faith is in the words which were translated by men, and therefore I see no further reason to discuss this with you. If you do not wish to look into what I am reffering to, that is your own decision, but I am not going to sit here and waste my time discussing things with you if you are not going to be rational.

point in fact, my contradictions are from passages in the bible itself and have nothing to do with people’s interpretations. The language of the bible has been corrupted over many centuries of malaligned mistranslation.

That does not mean it was not originally pure, I myself cannot make that judgement and won’t attempt to. In the same vein, the Koran has been a continuous document, but the later texts such as the Sunnah contradict much of the Koran, yet they make up doctrine for sects of Islam. This is a universal problem for religions. Look at Pure Land Buddhism, it is completely unlike true Buddhism in its lay practice.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #133181

is it possible that the original quran has not been altered at all?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #133182

Dr. Gnostic
You can also take the Bible and twist it to make it say what you want it to say. Just leave out verses that you don’t like. Or take them out of context. Then put them together in a way that suits you.
If I wanted to I could make up a doctrine that says the Bible says you have to hang yourself.
Matthew 27:5 Talking about Judas here.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Luke 10:37 Go, and do thou like wise.
Just by taking two verses out of context and putting them together I’ve proven that the Bible says to hang yourself.
This is what a lot of folks that want to discredit the Bible do. Also folks that want to justify their sinful ways do this.

BTW, Time for a disclaimer here. I’m in NO way saying that the Bible teaches to hang yourself. In fact it condemns suicide

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 13, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #133184

Ron,

You prove my point. Why would you put your complete faith in a book that is so easily skewed? If you can do it in 2006, then certainly many have done it before now. Why would God put a warning in the Bible about adding or subtracting from it, unless he knew it would happen? He prescribes a punishment for doing such, but does not say that the changes will be rectified. God does protect his word, but I believe he does it through both the letter, and to a much greater extent through the spirit.

You can put your faith in man if you want, but I will put my faith in God.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #133187

Loki and Iandanger, Wommanmarine and JayJay:

I again am sorry for the delay in my response. I am adressing you toghether mostly for ease and because both of you answered me with IMHO respect and a willingness to discuss in a positive way the issues I raised. I find it a joy that people can disagree on some issues and respectfully discuss them. My hat is off of you. Wommanmarine and JayJay, I apologize for missing your posts and I was not ignoring your comments and hope that you will continue to comment to me. I am just going to address some of the comments wholesale instead of trying to seperate everything. I hope you understand and can give me some latitude on this.

First of all, I will try to explain my position on homosexuality. I said up front that I think it is a sin. I know full well what scriptures are used by my church to support that belief. I also am aware of the way that the “church” as a whole has and in some cases is treating the issue. Our conservative “religious right” church handles it this way…hate the sin, but love the sinner. To elaborate, we are taught that as long as I have sin in my life(which is forever) I am never, never ever to judge another. That person should be loved and treated the same as I was when Jesus accepted me for what I am. A homosexuals sins are no greater than mine. That sin and my sins are the same in the eyes of God. I am no better than anyone esle and need to keep the focus on my shortcommings. We have never advocated outlawing hommosexuality nor condemming homosexuals. I personally feel that a lot of people think that teaching that something is wrong is the same as descriminating and being an xx-aphobe. It is entirely different.

I do not see or hear anything taught at our church that oppresses anyone nor does it even deride a sinner. Again we all are. As for race issues, we teach that a man/woman is a child of God….the end. We should treat each other accordingly. I have never thought about the racial make up of our church as such, but we have probably about 85% active members being white. I really dont think that means anything pro or con, but to get to the question I was asked, Bob Jones is wrong on this one.

As far legislating morality, we all are trying to do the same. Laws against murder, stealing and in general acting unresponsibly(DUI,Drug laws ETC) are all based on morals and human rights. My church’s biggest political stand is quite frankly abortion. We believe that it is murder pure and simple. And we have the right and responsibility to try to change that law. Others may not agree, and they have the same rights and responsibilities. One view has to be legislated over the other.

As far as our stand on Islam, it is simple also. We believe that it is a false religion(lest we couldnt believe that our’s is correct). We believe that we should point that out and let people make their own decision. That does not mean that we believe that Islam should not be allowed, nor should we condemn a person for following it.Again we believe that what some are using it for is comparable to what some______ (fill in any religion) have done. All were equally as wrong.

The biggest point that I am trying to make is that we are not the “best” church around nor are we anywhere near perfect. But we believe that we should speak against sin, but first as individuals clean our own house before we worry about our neighbors. As long as we focus on our sins, other people’s sins are small. But when we focus on others’ first, theirs seem huge and ours seem small. As a born again(backsliding) Christian, I dont see where that is neither wrong nor bad. But I do get angry and confused when just saying something is a sin is equated with bigotry. If you have questions or need me to clarify something, please tell me, as I know that this isnt a full response to everything. Thanks again.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 13, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #133188

“Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

Why do I find such similarities between this woman and Cindy Sheehan?

Why are the reactions to her statements such a contrast?

Posted by: tony at March 13, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #133190

I don’t believe for one moment that the bible is as simple as some here claim. The bible was written in parables, allegories, and figurative language for a reason. If God had wanted us to follow a set of rules then he simply would have written a guide book and sent it down to us. He didn’t. He wants us to seek out the truth, thereby seeking out him. Bear in mind that while the passages of the Bible may have been written by divine inspiration, they were still written, rewritten, and edited by man.

The Bible does not contridict itself, man does. Again, modern man looks to the Bible in a modern context. But to understand what is being said you sometimes have to have a historical knowledge to put it in proper context. One example is that many don’t know that the Bible describes three distinct genders. Most don’t know that because the word being used is assigned a modern meaning, not in the context of when it was written.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #133191

dr gnostic sir are you a fellow member of the gnostic society founded in america in 1928?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #133194

Rodney,

I am not a member of any organized religion. I quite frankly believe they are counterproductive. I am simply a man who was faced with a dilema I could not solve on my own so I turned to God for guidance.

Shortly after I turned myself over to his grace a whole new world opened up to me. Things that once seemed written in stone and unresolvable, became clear. One thing he led me to was the idea of divine knowledge. While I do not practice any laid out religious rules that may be considered Gnostic in nature, I do believe very strongly in the concept. I am amazed all the time at this whole world of understanding that is hidden away, but is available to anyone who seeks it.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #133197

Gnostic

It is growing mostly as from natural increase - i.e. more kids per woman surviving. The reaction to the west, I suppose, is the importation of western medicine that lowered infant mortality and allowed the population boom.

Amami

I would worry about those things if they were happening as you say.

Wiretapping has been mostly of foreigners or those speaking to terror suspects. Trials for terrorists are a special problem. It is like dealing with trials for mafia, only more dangerous.

If you don’t defend liberty, you lose them. This is from the extremes of anarchy and tyranny and from outside threats. You are worried about the potential tyranny of the president and missing the real threat from the outside by people who hate liberty.

BTW - the terrorists DO hate liberty. Specifically, they think democracy is against God’s will.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #133198

I don’t know if anyone has read the Bible, the book christians go by, but there were many, many wars in the Bible. God is Love, but he is not against war.
If it weren’t for war, we wouldn’t have this right of freedom of speech.
I dont always agree with our President, but wouldnt it be better if we all respected the man and prayed for him, instead of critizing and hating him. There is too much hate in this world, but here in America, there is so much hate for President Bush you can actually feel it. And the ones hating him, are the ones trying to say what a christian should be like.
Yes, we should love, but you can not love these enemies we are fighting into loving us, they will never love us. It is pure hatred against America, Americans and Jews. The same hatred they have for us is the same kind of hatred too many people have for our leader.

Posted by: cheryl at March 13, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #133199

“BTW - the terrorists DO hate liberty. Specifically, they think democracy is against God’s will.”

Can you back that up? The fundamentalist movements started as a reaction to authoritarian governments. I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just wondering if you have any sources for that, anything Osama or the other fundamentalist leaders have said.

Iran, for example, is technically a democracy (with a very very steep catch of course), and its pretty much islamist central.

Posted by: iandanger at March 13, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #133201

“If you don’t defend liberty, you lose them”

What do you get if you give up liberty?


“BTW - the terrorists DO hate liberty. Specifically, they think democracy is against God’s will.”

This is an absolute crock. These people hate America, not some unknown political structure or patriotic idealism. They hate American for some very stupid reasons, they hate American for some very legitimate reasons… Liberty & freedom have absolutely nothing to do with this “war.”

Posted by: tony at March 13, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #133202

Submariner:

Thanks for your kind words. I feel I responded to you in kind, i.e., your post was thoughtful and respectful. I tried to be the same.

My church’s biggest political stand is quite frankly abortion. We believe that it is murder pure and simple. And we have the right and responsibility to try to change that law.
But we believe that we should speak against sin, but first as individuals clean our own house before we worry about our neighbors. As long as we focus on our sins, other people’s sins are small.

I just don’t quite understand the differences in the stance between homosexuality, other sins, and abortion. My feeling from your posts is that it is not your (our) place to judge, it is up to God. Is that also not true for abortion? Why does one belief “hate the sin and love the sinner” but require no legislative action, and the other does?

It differs significantly from the other laws based on a collective morality, and written to keep the general population safe: DUI laws, etc.

I will say this. I am a Christian and a Democrat. I personally am opposed to abortion and would do my best to persuade someone through reason and love not to have one. I don’t believe that it is a law or precedent that should be changed. I do think the churches of all denominations have much work to do to support and love those who would seek abortion. I think this is and will be a much more effective and satisfying solution than passing a law.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful and appropriate comments.


To everyone else:

I saw the woman interviewed on CNN today. My feeling is that she, and her stance will not help much, since she is not a Muslim. What is needed is for Muslims themselves, particularly clerical leaders, to take some stance on this. JMHO.

She sounds too much like a “disgruntled former employee”.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #133204

Cheryl:

What you perceive as hate, I really think isn’t hate, just strong disagreement with what he is doing.

What makes you think we DON’T pray for him, and for our country?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #133205

dr gnostic please forgive my what is my line question , i remember reading about the gnostic about 25 years ago, thank you rodney brown

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #133206

If they hate America, why do they blow up clubs in Indonesia, markets in Turkey, subways in London and Madrid and thousands of fellow Muslims around the world. It seems they hate in general.

Iandanger

Re sources, I can’t satisfy you with a specific one liner. But if you read about the subject, you find that a radical Muslim does not recognize the legitimacy of any non-theocratic state. Sharia law is what they want and Sharia law is not subject to democratic interpretation.

I suggest you read the Wikipedia on Islamic Fundamentalist and then almost any books about Islam. We may draw different conclusions, but the one I draw is that it is incompatible with democracy.

BTW - The Christianity of the Middle Ages was also incompatible with democracy and free markets. It evolved. I hope radical Islam does too.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #133208

womanmarine
I didnt say you didnt pray for him but I know plenty of democrats and they hate our President, they dont pray for him, and I bet cha clintons, kerrys, reid,etc. dont pray for him and you can definely feel the daggers coming from them!
I wouldnt put my name in the same catagory as all of them and let them speak for me.

Posted by: cheryl at March 13, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #133209

“If they hate America, why do they blow up clubs in Indonesia, markets in Turkey, subways in London and Madrid and thousands of fellow Muslims around the world. It seems they hate in general.”

ummm…. they support our military action in Iraq?

Posted by: tony at March 13, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #133211

intimidation!
Spain fell for it

Posted by: cheryl at March 13, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #133212

Cheryl:

The problem is what you think you know. There are many of us who absolutely hate what he has done and is doing. That’s not the same as hating the President, the man. It can be hard to separate when speaking of him and his position. I stand by my feeling that he is not hated as so many of you profess.

And I believe that you would lose the bet that the Clintons, kerry, Reid, etc. don’t pray for him. I suspect his is prayed for more than usual.

This shouldn’t be about whether he or his policies are hated.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #133214

Tony

Indonesia? Morocco? Turkey specifically did NOT support us in Iraq. We should not forget all the Russian school children they murdered, or the attacks on Hindus in India. I suppose they attack black fellow Muslims in Sudan because of the war in Iraq, or murder Christians in Nigeria because of Iraq. Osama bin Laden is still holding a grudge about the fall of Spain in 1492. Why is that year significant?

Here is a provocative article about our subject. If a person in the U.S. denounces Islam, he may have to watch his back. But people can preach Jihad for years in London, Paris or New York and complain if the anyone gives him a dirty look. Maybe when someone denounces us, they SHOULD be afraid, but they are not.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #133215

cheryl you probly remember spain has a new goverment

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #133216

>>Wiretapping has been mostly of foreigners or those speaking to terror suspects. Trials for terrorists are a special problem. It is like dealing with trials for mafia, only more dangerous.

If you don’t defend liberty, you lose them. This is from the extremes of anarchy and tyranny and from outside threats. You are worried about the potential tyranny of the president and missing the real threat from the outside by people who hate liberty.

Jack,

I see these paragraphs as an extremely looong oxymoron…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 13, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #133217

For those who profess there are no contradictions in the bible, a question…

How did Judas Iscarot die? Did he fall on a sword or hang himself?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 13, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #133219

just some trivia ,SADDAM was a follower of the ancient king nebuchadnezzar who in 597 bc captured jerusalem

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #133220

there two accounts in the bible one is he hanged himself the other said he fell on rocks,

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #133222

i would like to think he did the first

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #133223

Womanmarine:

Thanks again.
As to your question about abortion as it relates to my beliefs on homosexuality and other sin ,I believe I can clear it up a bit. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. IMHO there is no difference to God if the sin is commiting murder, adultry, homosexuality or abortion. There is also no difference between these and many others that I am guilty of. I want to stress that I am not condemming anyone for commiting sin. I have too much in my life,and any sin is too much to qualify someone as judge. Someone that is homosexual or that has had/preformed an abortion is in no way any worse of a person than I am. They have in no way done anything more wrong than I did when I in my past(and in some other sins my present) used drugs, had premarital sex or even now when I get mad and cuss like the sailor that I was. I have no right to condemn people for failing when I myself fail every day.

As for the reason we are active on the abortion issue, we believe that men/women have have the right to live as they wish as so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. We believe that life begins at conception. People may dispute that if they wish, but we hold our ground on that. Now given that belief, it then follows that when a baby is aborted that life is destroyed and all that that child would ever have had, known or achieved is cut short and therefore that life has had its rights violated in a most permanent way. IMHO that practice must stopped, but that is NOT to say that the people that have had abortions are to be condemmed.

Contrast that with homosexuality. Two consenting adults choose(I believe it a choice) to practice a life style. Although I think it a sin and speak out about it, I do not think that the people that live this life style are in any way worse than I am. I do think that they only have different specific sins to answer for than I will, but all sin is of the same magnitude(save one sin, but that is getting more into doctorine and does not affect this discussion). I dont see how just being homosexual is violating the rights of others and therefore it does not merit leglislation banning or limiting the practice.

In either case, love should be shown for for the all of the people involved and respect for their rights should be observed. I hope this helped, but if there are any more questions, let me know.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 13, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #133224

Just to let the rest of you know:

What Jack says about Muslims living in the US being safe for criticising Bush is patently untrue. American Citizens of Arab Descent are subjected to some scary retributions by BushCo.

Posted by: Aldous at March 13, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #133226

In response about Judas Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Posted by: cheryl at March 13, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #133230

submarinesforever

A response to your comments about homosexuality and no law to ban or limit the practice of it.

Part of the homosexuality behavior is sodomy. The Supreme Court basically threw out the laws on sodomy. It is still wrong. There are cases where sodomy is committed as an act of rape. How does the legal community prosecute someone of rape by sodomy when the law has been nullified? There are organizations that are strongly advocating that the legal age of consent be done away with (NAMBLA). NAMBLA is a homosexual organization and they are bent on man boy relationships which are grossly wrong.

Posted by: tomh at March 13, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #133232

matt. 27.5 said he hanged himself and acts1.18 said he fell on rocks…..

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #133233

When Judas threw down the 30 peices of silver in the temple, the chief priests gathered them up and declared that it was illegal to put them in the treasury of the temple. They therefore went out and bought a field which was called “The field of blood”. When Judas hanged himself, they cast his body into a pit and his body broke into pieces. The field that was purchased was a potters field, which is to say a place for strangers and poor people.

Posted by: tomh at March 13, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #133234

Submariner:

BTW: thanks for your service to our country! Submariners are special and particularly brave in my book. As a Marine, I still have a special place in my heart for the Navy, my husband is retired Navy.

I have explained my position on abortion, and the only thing I disagree with is calling abortion murder because life begins at conception. That is a religious belief. Would that the medical profession would come to some terms, but my belief is that life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb. As the aunt of two very premature twins that I prayed day and night for, this is a very rapidly changing science. Perhaps that’s why the medical profession cannot say with any certainty when that is. This even goes against my own belief in that I believe (my own personal belief based on nothing more than my own feelings) that abortion should only be done in the first three months after conception. There will be many who disagree with my somewhat disjointed position, and I do believe that the health of the mother should always come first. Rape and incest are more touchy subjects on which I am torn.

Again, thanks for your thoughts on all this, it helps to understand all sides, and why folks feel the way they do.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #133240

Just to let the rest of you know, Aldous doesn’t give sources. I have seen some of these “sources”. Suffice to say, as a non-Arab, I have been singled out for special search at airports three times. My then 11 year old son once and my then 17 year old daughter once. I don’t know why. That is the kind of serious thing you are talking about, isn’t it Aldous.

Or are you talking about visa violators?

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #133241

dr sultan grew up in a large muslim family in banis syria and changed her veiws when her professor at school was killed in front of her. she said they shot hundreds of bullets in him shouting god is great in 1979.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 13, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #133245

Jack,

What I mean by the transAtlantic flight (in tourist class) is that you are cramped, uncomfortable, unable to sleep. If some fat guy sits next to you, you can’t move. If the guy in front of you leans back you can hardly breathe. Some of what passes for torture is no worse than this.

Either you’re being disengenuous or you don’t know what’s going on. Stress positions doesn’t mean sitting in an airplane chair. It’s more like configuring yourself into a pretzel for 24 hours. People die when they move out of the positions, because of the rush of blood to the parts of their bodies that were cut off while holding the position - no joke!

Sleep deprivation is one of the worst forms of torture there is. If you are kept awake over 48 hours you begin to hallucinate. It’s painful. That’s why these forms of torture were practiced by people like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao who were NOT fooling around or being soft on their captives. They wanted information immediately and these were the methods they chose to get it.

Your comment that what we do is like an airplane flight or, like Rush Limbaugh said, like a fraternity hazing is total bullshit. This is real torture.

Your comment is basically the opposite of what this brave woman has done. She had the cojones to tell her people their actions didn’t square with their supposed morality, but all the Bushies do is deny, deny, deny. It’s cowardly.

Posted by: Max at March 13, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #133266

marysdude, my theology cap is quite old, matt 27.5 said judas hung himself it did not say he died in the process. acts 1.18 tell’s the account of the death of judas, this was not a contradiction but a simple continuation of the death of judas. hope that helped

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 14, 2006 2:57 AM
Comment #133282

“Indonesia? Morocco? Turkey specifically did NOT support us in Iraq.”

Indonesia - seems mostly an internal conflict within the Muslim communities there. Seems to be similar to Morocco… homegrown terrorist. Do you think maybe McVeigh hated freedom as well?

Turkey - how do you think the American forces staged before invading Iraq?

I don’t think they hate liberty or freedom or Democracy… they hate people who interfere with thier way of life. I don’t agree with them whatsoever, but I think it’s extremely important to understand their true motive, not just a motive that spins well within American politics.

Posted by: tony at March 14, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #133285

Marysdude:

Here is a site that discusses how Judas Iscariot died. You can agree or disagree with the discussion, but its worth noting that language can be quite tricky.

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/judas.htm

My fiancee (now my wife) asked me once if I liked the music she had chosen for our wedding and whether I had any suggestions. I thought that meant she wanted my OPINION, when in reality she wanted my AGREEMENT. Language is tricky.

Other language traps to avoid:

“Does this make me look fat?” is NOT a real question. The only answer is a quick “Of course not, you look nice”. Any hesitation is a problem.

“Honey, do you mind if my mother spends next week with us?” is also NOT a real question.

Marysdude, the Bible is the most complex book ever written, and it has been scrutinized more than any other book. It has been studied by scholars endlessly, yet still contains mysteries. My simple test for the veracity of the Bible is to compare it to any other book ever written and guage the complexity. To think that such a book could have been written solely by the mostly uneducated authors simply isn’t believable.

In any event, there are many things in the Bible which appear to be discrepancies. I heard an author once say that even if the discrepancies are there, or better are unable to be proved to NOT be discrepancies, they still only make up less than 1/10th of a percent of the Bible, and why would someond discard the entire Bible based on such a small percentage of question.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 14, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #133291

iandanger-

iandanger-

I learned a great deal about Islam from the Ask the Imam site, because it takes questions (in English) and categorizes the answers by topic. Based upon your knowledge of the Koran would you consider this a good reference?

There are somewhat official (as official as any one Imam can give) answers to most questions of Islam including politics, the treatment of women, beliefs, and the Koran. FYI here’s their answer concerning Offensive Jihad:

You should understand that we as Muslims firmly believe that the person who doesn’t believe in Allah as he is required to, is a disbeliever who would be doomed to Hell eternally. Thus one of the primary responsibilities of the Muslim ruler is to spread Islam throughout the world, thus saving people from eternal damnation.

Thus what is meant by the passage in Tafsir Uthmani, is that if a country doesn’t allow the propagation of Islam to its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this, then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus saving them from the Fire of Jahannum. If the Kuffaar allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not wage Jihad against them.

Posted by: George in SC at March 14, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #133303

Islam is in fact an evangelist religion, just like christianity, and they do in fact believe that if you do not follow their way you are going to hell (though hell is a very interesting concept in Islam…sorry I read this stuff instead of watching tv, religions’ handling of hell is to me what the matrix is to most americans).

Ask an Imam seems to be a reputable site, though I would preffer the answers actually include Koranic passages, as some doctrines wind up getting included in sects of Islam because of cultural needs, rather than due to anything in the Koran itself (such as the veils of the middle east).

Jihad has a very complicated meaning. The word itself simply means to struggle, but in the context of the Koran, it is used in 2 ways by the prophet Mohammad, he categorized an extremely difficult battle as being the easy Jihad, but the more important Jihad is the internal one, defeating sin and weakness. Jihad means struggle, or in the context of combat, defense of Islam. Jihad is absolutely not an offensive attack:

“Permission (to fight) is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and GOD is certainly able to support them. They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, “Our Lord is GOD.” If it were not for GOD’s supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.”(22:39-40).

Now, what confuses me about this post is the usage of the word Jihad. It seems to mean, to me, if one oppresses Muslims in a country, the Muslim ruler is bound to come to the aid of those who are being oppressed. This is part of how the Islamist movement began, secular dictators would crack down on the Muslims in their country (because one of the key values of Islam is justice, something dictators of any kind don’t want), this gave birth to a movement which is now as corrupt as the rulers that inspired it, they believe that they must purify their nation and force excessive devotion because the power of the dictator is the will of G*d, punishing them for a lack of obedience.

I hope that somewhat answers your question. I am by no means an expert on Islam, and certainly there are many schools of thought when it comes to the religion.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #133307
My simple test for the veracity of the Bible is to compare it to any other book ever written and guage the complexity.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 14, 2006 08:58 AM

Pretty simple test. Then you must completely mistrust Bush and the tax code is the ultimate truth. Do you worship that too?

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #133311

jihad in dictionary means:
a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty;

Posted by: cls at March 14, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #133313

Ron,

You prove my point. Why would you put your complete faith in a book that is so easily skewed? If you can do it in 2006, then certainly many have done it before now. Why would God put a warning in the Bible about adding or subtracting from it, unless he knew it would happen? He prescribes a punishment for doing such, but does not say that the changes will be rectified. God does protect his word, but I believe he does it through both the letter, and to a much greater extent through the spirit.

You can put your faith in man if you want, but I will put my faith in God.

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at March 13, 2006 07:51 PM


My faith is in God. Not man. And my faith in God gives me the faith to believe that God can preserve His Word, untampered with. He put the warning against adding and subtracting from His Word because he knew that men wound do just that. They take the Bible and try to make it say what they want it to. They’ve also in the later so called translations left verses out to take belief in the Blood of Christ for Salvation out and make baptism the means of Salvation. This is the kind of things God was warning about.
The Holy Spirit helps you understand the Bible. This is where so many folks that try to use the Bible to back what they are saying mess up. They don’t understand what is being said and take things out of context.
The Bible is really easy to understand, But first you have to have true faith in God.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 14, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #133318

I must speak in defense of christianity.
There are many, many ‘Religions’, denominations, beliefs, Organizations.
I have been a christian for 30 years and have belonged to Religious organizations for about 20 of those years.
But in the last 10 years, I found something new about being a christian.
Jesus was not religious. He astounded the theologians of his time, and called relious leaders, a brood of vipers.
What I have is Not religion!
It is a personal Relationship with my Savior.
I belong to a church. A very known and large church in Detroit, and we are out of the Organized Religions. It is freedom to love everybody and experience the whole Bible.
I just wish everyone could experience Gods love and accept Him and follow Him.

Posted by: cheryl at March 14, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #133319

This is the way to reach them.

Sad that we are seeing our beliefs in god
twisted for self serve. Our walls between
Church and state have been terrorised.

The Christian Right has become the American
Extreamist wrapped in our flag. Many weep
over the fact that they have turned from the
words and teachings of Jesus. To seek control
of morals through the Republican Party.

Republicans seeking votes have handed Religion
the keys to dismantel and devide as all Extremist do.

Posted by: Honey P at March 14, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #133322

When I came to this site, it said Republican & Conservative
There are very few who fit that description that comment here.
I think I will go to a different site, hmm… Liberal Democrats?

Posted by: cls at March 14, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #133323

I just tried the Liberal Democrat blog, its pretty empty. That party is pretty boring.

Posted by: cls at March 14, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #133326

cheryl at March 13, 2006 08:54 PM

I HEAR YOU GIRL.

cheryl, RODNEY
While both Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 give an account of Judas’ death they both say something different. It’s believed by some theologians that he used to much rope and pulled his head off and his guts came out. Others say that the rope broke and he fell on some rocks and burst open. Use either one you want. He hanged himself and his guts did come out.
Anyone that’s done any butchering of animals knows that if you cut the head off and pull on the esophagus that a good part of the animals guts will come out with it. This could be what happened, and I tend to think so. But I have no problem with the other explanation either.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 14, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #133327

“jihad in dictionary means:
a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty”

That is nice that you believe that, but the problem is that you are looking at a dictionary, get someone to translate the Arabic. Jihad means struggle or striving. There is a word for Holy War in Arabic: al-harbu al-muqaddasatu

The word Jihad means to struggle for God and acchieve what you might call grace. Jihad is the process of submitting to God in every way. Christians have similar concepts. Jihad can also be used to infer a battle protecting justice and God, but other than that, you are wrong, and most westerners are wrong, to the extent that the term Jihad has a cultural deffinition now that has nothing to do with the words Arabic meaning.

I wish there was an Arab or a Muslim here to engage this further. I feel like the balance beam is me leaning toward deffense of Islam from the middle (I’m not a Muslim, I don’t agree that there is a God, etc) and most of the rest of you are on the other side jumping up and down on the attack Islam side. Makes for a good debate.

Posted by: iandanger at March 14, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #133328

I just wish everyone could experience Gods love and accept Him and follow Him.


Posted by: cheryl at March 14, 2006 11:58 AM

You and me both

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 14, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #133334

The bottom line..

When you start judging someone else(culturaly, politicaly, socially, economically)and then have the audacity to decide that you are going the make them like you ( culturaly, politically, socially, economically)through force, then you are the one that is wrong and anything that they can muster up to remove you, destroy you, erradicate you is fair game.

The so called Neo-con perspective, ‘we believe in freedom, individualism, soverignity’ exists as long as it conforms to there agenda of corporatism, greed, and imperialism.

Coming from a person who loves America, believes in America, but won’t uphold ideals of elitism or imperialism.

Posted by: sig at March 14, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #133345

Dr. Gnostic
So, forcing a set of beliefs onto others is ok as long as the majority of “We The People” say it is?
Thats how a Democracy works, not a Constitutional Republic.
Taking away the rights, choices and responsibilities of the people and placing it in the control of govt, is why we have this little cat and mouse game going on.

Jack should not have said, When God is a Monster, he should have asked, When IS God a Monster?
Because that is what this is all about. Use God as a monster when you disagree with anothers beliefs.
Screaming seperation of church and state is not about keeping the church out of govt, its about keeping the beliefs of others that one does not agree with out of govt.

Posted by: kctim at March 14, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #133348

kc;

I would say:

People use G-d as a monster when they disagree with anothers beliefs, so G-d must be kept away from the legal system. Separation of church and state is about keeping religion out of govt so one faith’s rules do not distort the lives of another faith’s adherents.
Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #133359

cheryl, ron brown
Count me in. Amen Brother and Sister.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #133363

sig, that sounds more like a liberal socialistic doctrine. i don’t adhire to neo- cons. but i do adhire more to a moderate form of ideology. to each there own

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 14, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #133365

One thing for certain is that some day everybody will bend their knee and declare that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #133380

And the Lords name is Jehova!

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #133381

Or is the Lords name Allah?

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #133382

or JEHOVAH.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 14, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #133385

Dave:

My simple test for the veracity of the Bible is to compare it to any other book ever written and guage the complexity. Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 14,2006 08:58AM

Pretty simple test. Then you must completely mistrust Bush and the tax code is the ultimate truth. Do you worship that too?

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 11:21 AM

I really do appreciate the amount of attention you pay to my posts. I get a kick out of the logic you torture to make your points—its kind of fun to see. I like your sarcasm and irony, assuming that’s what you intended. Thanks. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 14, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #133401

Womanmarine:
Thanks again for your kind words. I salute you also for your service, and the Marines have a special place in my heart. We used to talk yall into beating the crap out of us from time to time. And thank your husband for me as well.

As for your position on abortion, I do disagree with you. But what pleases me most is that we were able to discuss it in a civil manner showing each other respect. I just hope that more people will see that if you do that there is a real possibility that if you dont bring them to your way of thinking you may still get them to respect your position.

I also hope that people can see that just taking a stand on an issue does not mean that you are condemming or judging anyone. You can just be stating a belief and have reasons for that belief.

People, we need to get to the point where we can disagree with each other and still show respect for the one you are in disagreement with. Until we do, nothing will get solved. I have failed to do that in previous posts in this blog and became part of the problem. I hope that I dont repeat that mistake.

TomH:

I agree that sodomy is wrong and it is a sin. However, if it occurs between consenting adults, they have the right. Not all that is “wrong” should be outlawed. I believe as long as a choice doesnt violate anothers basic human rights, that choice should not be leglislated away due to it being wrong. As far as the rape goes, follow my last sentence and you can see my position. Sodomy laws may have been struck down, but that does not that mean that person cannot be prosecuted for rape. As for the man-boy association, any sex with a child should always be met with most severe penalities.

Posted by: submarinesforever at March 14, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #133405

tomh,

You should really check your “facts” before posting comments here. NAMBLA is NOT a homosexual organization, it is a 300 member pedophilia organization.

Your argument about sodomy makes no sense. Vaginal sex is not outlawed either, but vaginal rape is still a crime. The same holds true for rape by sodomy.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 14, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #133408

NAMBLA=North American Man Boy Love Association

It is both pedophile and homosexual.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #133411

tomh,

Pedophilia is different than homosexuality, just because these happen to be gay men doesn’t make it a homosexual organization. This group in no way shape or form represents the vast majority of gay men.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 14, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #133423

jbod,

Thanks, but believe me I didn’t hurt myself doing any gymnastics on that one. You laid out the path for me, nice and easy :-)
Out of curiosity; was that sentence “guage the complexity” taken from the ID nonsense of “irreducible complexity”?

Posted by: Dave at March 14, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #133426

>>In any event, there are many things in the Bible which appear to be discrepancies. I heard an author once say that even if the discrepancies are there, or better are unable to be proved to NOT be discrepancies, they still only make up less than 1/10th of a percent of the Bible, and why would someond discard the entire Bible based on such a small percentage of question.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 14, 2006 08:58 AM>>In any event, there are many things in the Bible which appear to be discrepancies. I heard an author once say that even if the discrepancies are there, or better are unable to be proved to NOT be discrepancies, they still only make up less than 1/10th of a percent of the Bible, and why would someond discard the entire Bible based on such a small percentage of question.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 14, 2006 08:58 AM

joe,

I was responding to the post that stated the perfection of the bible as if it was written by God. My question was only meant to challenge that assumption. You and the perfect poster can believe what you wish, but please don’t spew that ‘perfect’ nonsense in public.

There has never been a perfect man, i.e., “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”. Nor has there been a perfect book, i.e., how did Judas die?

Discard the bible because it has discrepencies? Why? But, realize that it was written, edited and translated by several men throughout history? Why not?

I’m an athiest, but realize the benefits of having such a book. The Torah, the Bible, the Koran, the book of Confucius and more are great visions to guide a life, as long as it is your life it guides. Please just leave my life alone.

Our government can screw up enough without the righteous right’s interference…a republic/democracy is much better able to handle those things that governance is responsible for than any theocracy.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 14, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #133453

you athistis$$$ are going to ruin this world $$$ you think you are so smart$$$ and cleaver i got you $$$ pegged you dont fool me$$$ ha ha ha ha ha$$$

Posted by: angry white man at March 14, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #133479

One thing for certain is that some day everybody will bend their knee and declare that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Posted by: tomh at March 14, 2006 03:15 PM

How Right You Are.

Philippians 2:10

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 15, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #133480

Pedophilia is different than homosexuality, just because these happen to be gay men doesn’t make it a homosexual organization. This group in no way shape or form represents the vast majority of gay men.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 14, 2006 07:52 PM


It may not represent the majority of homosexuals, but it’s still a homosexual organization.
Just like the Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t represent the majority of Christians. But it’s still a christian organization.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 15, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #133504

Ron Brown,

“It may not represent the majority of homosexuals, but it’s still a homosexual organization.
Just like the Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t represent the majority of Christians.”

You’re comparing apples and oranges. Both just happen to be fruit.
By your logic Namlba should be considered a hetero-sexual organization, because most pedophiles are hetero-sexual.

Posted by: Rocky at March 15, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #133534

Rocky
NAMBLA is men pursuing boys. That is homosexual first and pedophile is close behind pardon the pun.

Posted by: tomh at March 15, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #133588

tomh,

“NAMBLA is men pursuing boys. That is homosexual first and pedophile is close behind pardon the pun.”

You totally missed the point, which actually isn’t that supprising.

You, and those like you, continually lump homosexuals with devient sexual predators and criminals.

They are not.

You will continue, dispite your protests to the contrary, to think that gays are second class citizens, and you will continue to equate gays with criminals, because your faith doesn’t allow you to think otherwise.

The Bible said it, you belive the Bible, end of argument.

Posted by: Rocky at March 15, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #133597

Rocky
You are twisting things so let me give it to you from a different angle.

Men pursuing boys for sexual pleasure is a crime. Those in NAMBLA are criminals. They also are classified as homosexuals and pedophiles. This is apparently a difference in perspective.

Posted by: tomh at March 15, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #133605

tomh,

“You are twisting things so let me give it to you from a different angle.

Men pursuing boys for sexual pleasure is a crime. Those in NAMBLA are criminals. They also are classified as homosexuals and pedophiles. This is apparently a difference in perspective.”

I am not twisting anything.

Nambla is about pedophilia, first and foremost. They are deviants. The fact that they are also homosexuals is inconsequential to the point, and by lumping ALL gays in with NAMBLA, which BTW makes up an insignificant percentage of homosexuals, just shows your ignorance on the subject.


Posted by: Rocky at March 15, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #133648

Marysdude:

You and the perfect poster can believe what you wish, but please don’t spew that ‘perfect’ nonsense in public.

From your post, it doesn’t appear that you read the link I provided regarding how Judas died. There is certainly a discrepancy in Mark’s and Luke’s account of Judas’ death, but according to the link only if you take each comment literally. You don’t have to take the comments literally though, for that would eliminate the author’s ability to use figures of speech. For instance, Psalms 104:22 says, “The sun rises, and they steal away; they return and lie down in their dens.” This shouldn’t be taken to mean that the earth does not revolve around the sun—-its just a figure of speech.

The link I provided gives you an additional viewpoint on Judas’ death. If you haven’t read it, it might give you more perspective on the issue if you’re interested.

As I said before, a simple test of the Bible can be whether the expectation that uneducated men could have written such a deep and complex book makes sense. There are many other tests as well (historical proofs, theological proofs etc), but that simple one works well too.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 15, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #133658

Rocky
I understand where you are coming from now.

I at no time stated that all homosexuals are tied in with NAMBLA. I do not believe that all homosesxuals are tied in with NAMBLA. That is a misunderstanding.

I also don’t think that in the case of NAMBLA that they are pedophiles or homosexuals first. They are equally both. I agree that they are deviants and also perverts. Any similiar words that you would use I probably would agree with you.

Posted by: tomh at March 15, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #133675

more trivia class, on top of the washington monument, there is a metal cap on the very top written on it is, the latin words, LAUS DEO…

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 15, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #133693
I also don’t think that in the case of NAMBLA that they are pedophiles or homosexuals first. They are equally both.

tomh,

No you are wrong, they are not equally both. Their main focus is not homosexuality or issues affecting gays and lesbians. They are a group advocating pedophilia. Big differance.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 15, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #133709

>>For instance, Psalms 104:22 says, “The sun rises, and they steal away; they return and lie down in their dens.” This shouldn’t be taken to mean that the earth does not revolve around the sun—-its just a figure of speech.

joe,

At the time of the writing of the Bible, why wouldn’t it mean the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun? Did the writers know, at the time, how our solar system was configured? Wow! Maybe God DID write that thing…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 15, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #133720

the number twelve, twelve tribes of israel. twelve gates in jerusalem twelve disciples of christ. and twelve astrological signs! fact!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 15, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #133726

Joe,

You’re right, the writers of the Bible weren’t educated men, but those that translated it were, though most of the translations came before the Bible met the printing press in the 1450’s and even in the 1490’s Columbus’s sailors thought the world was flat.

From; http://evolution.mbdojo.com/conflict.html

“The bible verse shackled the minds of men for thousands of years, and held back the advance of science. It was this verse that was used as evidence against Galileo, who argued for the theory of Copernicus, that the earth is not immovable, but rotates around the sun. It was for teaching this that he was called to Rome in 1633, and tried for the crime of heresy.”


iandanger is right, this book has been writen and re-writen and translated and re-translated so many times it is not a wonder that it takes faith to belive any of it.

Posted by: Rocky at March 15, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #133786

Rocky,
Homosexuality is two people of the same sex having sex with each other.
NAMBLA is about men having sex with boys. Both are males. At least last I knew. That make the men in NAMBLA homosexuals. Do any heterosexuals belong to NAMBLA? No. That makes NAMBLA a homosexual organization.
True not all homosexuals belong to it. But not all homosexuals belong to other homosexual organizations either. Does that mean that they ain’t homosexuals organizations either?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #133791

Ron Brown

Thanks for the supporting argument. I don’t understand the mixup some people have on this issue.

Posted by: tomh at March 16, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #133798

Ron,

“That makes NAMBLA a homosexual organization.”

Walk up to any homosexual on the street and ask him/her if they want to be associated with Nambla.

I don’t know how to explain it in terms that you will get.

The members of Nambla are humans, does that make Nambla a human organization?

No doubt that the would be members that may claim to be Christian, does that make Nambla a “Christian” organization.

They may claim to be republicans, does that make it a republican organization?

They might be conservitive…..

As I said to tomh, the fact that these guys are homosexual, is incedential, they are deviants first, they are predators first, they are criminal first.

The only thing that even remotely associates them with homosexuality is that they are men and they are after boys.

I am a married man of 25 years and I take offence that you guys would lump homosexuals in with criminals.

I would have thought that you would be better informed than that.

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #133874

Rocky
Homosexuals aren’t criminals as such. Homosexuals that prey on children are. Just like heterosexuals aren’t criminals as such. But heterosexuals that prey on children are.
Ant organization that advocates homosexual activity is homosexual. NAMBLA advocates men having sex with boys. Sense both are males, or at least last I knew, maybe yaall Liberals changed that, NAMBLA is a homosexual organization.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #133879

Forget it Rocky,

Bigots hate gays simply “because”. They will look the issue only in their way; reality and logic has nothing to do with it

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #133880

Dave,

What was I thinking?

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #133888

Rocky,

You were thinking like a liberal. You know, logic and discussion can come to a new and better understanding. Instead of like a conservative, y’all know, not!liberal.

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #133892

Dave,

“You were thinking like a liberal. You know, logic and discussion can come to a new and better understanding.”

Except I don’t consider myself a liberal.

Just logical.

Posted by: Rocky at March 16, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #133894

Dave
That’s where your wrong again. Anyone that knows me will tell you that I’m not a bigot.
And sense when did Liberals use logic? Everyone I know uses feelings.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #133898

rocky,

Didn’t you get the memo? Anyone who doesn’t think the homosexual agenda is ruining our country is a liberal? (Anyway, I said “thinking like”)

Ron,

I didn’t say you were a bigot. (Intimate perhaps…) But since when do I have feelings? I’m a pro-choice child murderer, how could I?

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #134002

Ron,

Two men having sex is homosexuality.

A man and a boy having sex is pediphilia.

This is where your logic is getting screwed up.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at March 16, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #134027

in a nutshell, your saying 99.9% of the gay community would not approve of nambla .just like 99.9% of the heterosexual community also would not approve of it. (i know) but just to clear the air?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 16, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #134035

JayJay
Two males having sex together is homosexuality. It doesn’t matter what the ages are. If they’re both adults then it’s adults homosexuality. If it an adult and a boy then its homosexual pedophilia.

Homosexuality = sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.
New Websters Dictionary

It doesn’t say anything about the ages of the people involved.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #134036

But since when do I have feelings? I’m a pro-choice child murderer, how could I?

Posted by: Dave at March 16, 2006 12:45 PM

You said it not me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #134080

Sticks and stones brother…

Posted by: Dave at March 17, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #134149

Ron,

To be technical, having sex with a child before puberty would be pedophilia. Actually pedophilia refers to the mental illness and not specific actions, but you see my point. This does not have to do with being homosexual.

Having sex with a teenager or adolescent is not pedophilia. Some would call this ephebophilia, although many psychiatrists don’t classify it as a mental illness per se.

I would say pedophile sex is NOT homosexuality, and it’s unfair to equate homosexuals with child molesters as you’ve done. The latter with teenage boys might be considered homosexual (although wrong), but most gays associate with other adults just like heterosexuals.

Posted by: John at March 17, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #134323

John
Is a prepuberty boy still a member of the male sex? While it is child molestation is is still a homosexual act.
I find it very interesting and disturbing at the number of folks that want to deny homosexual acts with minors homosexuality. Like it’s different from two adults. Well it ain’t, it’s just illegal.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 18, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #134439

Ron,

The point wasn’t to deny that NAMBLA comits homosexual acts.

The point was that they weren’t a “Homosexual” organization.

By making that claim you are infering that they are supported by all homosexuals, and that just ain’t so.

Posted by: Rocky at March 18, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #134467

Do you call the Catholic Church a Christian Organization? I can guarantee you that not all Christians support it. So I reckon it really ain’t Christian after all.
NAMBLA is a Homosexual organization. Even though most homosexuals don’t support it and despise it.
I have a cousin that’s homosexual. I love him like a brother. He knows that I don’t agree with his lifestyle, but that hasn’t change our relationship any.
I called him this evening and asked him about NAMBLA. I asked him if he considered it a homosexual organization and he said that unfortunately it was.
Then he said, his exact words, “That f…..g child molesting q…r organization needs to be wiped out and the members shot.”
Anyone that would support child molestation straight or gay has some serious issues that need to be addressed.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 19, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #134673

263 and counting good topic.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 19, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #172935

I LOVE HER!!!

Posted by: stanley at August 2, 2006 11:23 PM
Post a comment