Why the hyperpartisanship?

[dbucfan]

That's where there is difference bradentonian.  One religion has a tenet for its' believers to eliminate those who will not convert to their religion.  That changes the characterizations from extremists. 

[beardmcdoug]

no, its not even "one or the other"; nobody gets to have their religion.

the whole concept of religion is what keeps us paranoid and divided.

Christianity isn't innocent. 

It ALL needs to be abandoned - the safe little fairy tale about seeing your family when you die, the defeatist "oh god made it that way" attitudes, the irreconcilable hatred of the "other"...

Don't you 21st century people see that religion is absolute bullsh*t!?


and if you're now going to argue with me that "no, christianity is the good religion - its Islam that is the crazy religion that won't allow anybody but Islamic people to live on the earth, including you, non-believer, so you better watch your ass too, they're coming for you too!" - then can we not just say that Islam absolutely needs to be eliminated in order to continue on with a (nonsubmissive) peaceful life on Earth?

[Ladyfan]

It might be helpful to make a distinction between organized religion and personal spiritiuality.

For many young people nowadays according to some of those never ending polls is that young people are turned off by organized religion and its tenets and prefer to undestake personal paths of spiritual pursuit.  I personally came to this conclusion a number of years ago.  Another aspect of christianity is its adherence to missionary work.   The effort to convert heathens to the christian ideal has harmed more than it has helped.  In the case of catholicism in the early days it was purely a political power move to expand the roman world.

http://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/youth-turned-off-by-religion-and-politics-turn-away-from-church/                                           http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:christian-missionaries-more-harm-than-good&catid=26:missionaries&Itemid=108

[dbucfan]

no, its not even "one or the other"; nobody gets to have their religion.

the whole concept of religion is what keeps us paranoid and divided.

Christianity isn't innocent. 

It ALL needs to be abandoned - the safe little fairy tale about seeing your family when you die, the defeatist "oh god made it that way" attitudes, the irreconcilable hatred of the "other"...

Don't you 21st century people see that religion is absolute bullsh*t!?


and if you're now going to argue with me that "no, christianity is the good religion - its Islam that is the crazy religion that won't allow anybody but Islamic people to live on the earth, including you, non-believer, so you better watch your ass too, they're coming for you too!" - then can we not just say that Islam absolutely needs to be eliminated in order to continue on with a (nonsubmissive) peaceful life on Earth?

I suppose I would offer you are entitled to your opinions/beliefs. 

[dbucfan]

It might be helpful to make a distinction between organized religion and personal spiritiuality.

For many young people nowadays according to some of those never ending polls is that young people are turned off by organized religion and its tenets and prefer to undestake personal paths of spiritual pursuit.  I personally came to this conclusion a number of years ago.  Another aspect of christianity is its adherence to missionary work.   The effort to convert heathens to the christian ideal has harmed more than it has helped.  In the case of catholicism in the early days it was purely a political power move to expand the roman world.

http://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/youth-turned-off-by-religion-and-politics-turn-away-from-church/                                           http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:christian-missionaries-more-harm-than-good&catid=26:missionaries&Itemid=108

I think some folks have worked very hard to steer children away from organized religions - and it has worked to a degree.  And to those responsible let's hope they have done the right thing.  As to your description of the relationship between the Roman world (which I presume would be the Roman Empire) and the Catholic Church or Catholicism in general I have never heard of the relationship you have described. 

[CBWx2]

I was saying that Islam is no more a "violent" religion than Christianity is, and I still am.

talk about  a defensive, politically motivated rationalization.  Ugh . . .

Its axiomatic that more violence is perpetrated these days by people of Islamic faith (911, Bali etc.) The world is literally so awash in violence perpetrated by Muslims, who themselves claim their violence is on behalf of Islam, that the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is a part of every day life.  There is no corresponding phrase associated with Christianity, right? People do not, for example, picture Baptist ministers when they hear the phrase"suicide bomber," right? So when you make that incredibly stupid comment above you at least acknowledge, I presume, that substantial actual, real violence is, in fact, perpetrated these days by Muslims who, again, claim themselves that their violence is on behalf of Allah, right? I mean do you at least acknowledge that, right?  If I foollow you, you do ts just that you "think" we should discount all of that violence -- perpetrated by Muslims on behalf of Allah -- because its "political"?  Wow . . .  . and from that Muslim violence = Christian violence?   Wow, wow . . . .

I think most would agree that Islamic terroism and violence is a distortion of the actual Muslim faith, but that DOES NOT mean it is not muslim violence and it certainly does not means that Christians are as violent as Muslims, which would be the inescapable corollary of your statement above.

CBW . . . seriously . . . when you tpe some of your standard BS, like the comment above,  do you ever step back and read it and just laugh?  You should because its some funny crap.  I ask though because the only question in my mind is whether your tortured arguments are intentional or ignorant?

Reasons for the 9/11 attacks according to the poeple who actually committed them:

In various pronouncements before and after the attacks, al-Qaeda explicitly cited three motives for its activities against Western countries: the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq.

Hmm, don't see "because you aren't Muslim" on that list. Do you?

Islamic extremism is fueled by many political and socioeconomic factors, just like extremism in almost every other aspect of human life. Islamic extremists have rarely ever attacked anyone for solely religious reasons. Take a look at the demands or reasons given by every Islamic attack that you can, and I guarantee you that you will find a political motive behind it. Terrorism is a POLITICAL ACT, NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

The goal of any conversionary faith is to grow the religion by getting people who aren't currently subscribers to it to become subscribers to it. You can't convert someone by killing them. Get a freaking clue, you mongoloid.

[Col. Klink]

I was saying that Islam is no more a "violent" religion than Christianity is, and I still am.

talk about  a defensive, politically motivated rationalization.  Ugh . . .

Its axiomatic that more violence is perpetrated these days by people of Islamic faith (911, Bali etc.) The world is literally so awash in violence perpetrated by Muslims, who themselves claim their violence is on behalf of Islam, that the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is a part of every day life.  There is no corresponding phrase associated with Christianity, right? People do not, for example, picture Baptist ministers when they hear the phrase"suicide bomber," right? So when you make that incredibly stupid comment above you at least acknowledge, I presume, that substantial actual, real violence is, in fact, perpetrated these days by Muslims who, again, claim themselves that their violence is on behalf of Allah, right? I mean do you at least acknowledge that, right?  If I foollow you, you do ts just that you "think" we should discount all of that violence -- perpetrated by Muslims on behalf of Allah -- because its "political"?  Wow . . .  . and from that Muslim violence = Christian violence?   Wow, wow . . . .

I think most would agree that Islamic terroism and violence is a distortion of the actual Muslim faith, but that DOES NOT mean it is not muslim violence and it certainly does not means that Christians are as violent as Muslims, which would be the inescapable corollary of your statement above.

CBW . . . seriously . . . when you tpe some of your standard BS, like the comment above,  do you ever step back and read it and just laugh?  You should because its some funny crap.  I ask though because the only question in my mind is whether your tortured arguments are intentional or ignorant?

Reasons for the 9/11 attacks according to the poeple who actually committed them:

In various pronouncements before and after the attacks, al-Qaeda explicitly cited three motives for its activities against Western countries: the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq.

Hmm, don't see "because you aren't Muslim" on that list. Do you?

Islamic extremism is fueled by many political and socioeconomic factors, just like extremism in almost every other aspect of human life. Islamic extremists have rarely ever attacked anyone for solely religious reasons. Take a look at the demands or reasons given by every Islamic attack that you can, and I guarantee you that you will find a political motive behind it. Terrorism is a POLITICAL ACT, NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

The goal of any conversionary faith is to grow the religion by getting people who aren't currently subscribers to it to become subscribers to it. You can't convert someone by killing them. Get a freaking clue, you mongoloid.

CBW, dude, that's a great quote about the 911 murderers and probably true but you've got to link it to something ...

[Col. Klink]

That's where there is difference bradentonian.  One religion has a tenet for its' believers to eliminate those who will not convert to their religion.  That changes the characterizations from extremists.

Both religions have some pretty violent tenets, it's only the extremists of one that actually believe and cary them out .... or were we supposed to throw out the whole Old Testament?

[dbucfan]

"Get a freaking clue, you mongoloid"    Here's hoping I don't create such a reaction.

Rather than posting back and forth ideas and links - I would recommend you find someone who in all likelihood does know the relationship between Islam and the non-Islamic world.  I have relatives who have lived in many of the Islamic countries - and those relatives support the teachings presented in the "War Colleges" used to prepare American Services - from armed to representative - in this topic.  The man who most succinctly captures the gist of the teachings and has spoken in public is Congressman Alan West.

Now think what you will - as you should.  But don't ignore what is being taught, and the outburst from West.

[VinBucFan]

no, its not even "one or the other"; nobody gets to have their religion.

the whole concept of religion is what keeps us paranoid and divided.

Christianity isn't innocent. 

It ALL needs to be abandoned - the safe little fairy tale about seeing your family when you die, the defeatist "oh god made it that way" attitudes, the irreconcilable hatred of the "other"...

Don't you 21st century people see that religion is absolute bullsh*t!?


and if you're now going to argue with me that "no, christianity is the good religion - its Islam that is the crazy religion that won't allow anybody but Islamic people to live on the earth, including you, non-believer, so you better watch your ass too, they're coming for you too!" - then can we not just say that Islam absolutely needs to be eliminated in order to continue on with a (nonsubmissive) peaceful life on Earth?

You sure do have an odd view about religion. Sort of like learning history by watching All in the Family.

[dbucfan]

Okay - that was funny Vince...

[CBWx2]

I was saying that Islam is no more a "violent" religion than Christianity is, and I still am.

talk about  a defensive, politically motivated rationalization.  Ugh . . .

Its axiomatic that more violence is perpetrated these days by people of Islamic faith (911, Bali etc.) The world is literally so awash in violence perpetrated by Muslims, who themselves claim their violence is on behalf of Islam, that the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is a part of every day life.  There is no corresponding phrase associated with Christianity, right? People do not, for example, picture Baptist ministers when they hear the phrase"suicide bomber," right? So when you make that incredibly stupid comment above you at least acknowledge, I presume, that substantial actual, real violence is, in fact, perpetrated these days by Muslims who, again, claim themselves that their violence is on behalf of Allah, right? I mean do you at least acknowledge that, right?  If I foollow you, you do ts just that you "think" we should discount all of that violence -- perpetrated by Muslims on behalf of Allah -- because its "political"?  Wow . . .  . and from that Muslim violence = Christian violence?   Wow, wow . . . .

I think most would agree that Islamic terroism and violence is a distortion of the actual Muslim faith, but that DOES NOT mean it is not muslim violence and it certainly does not means that Christians are as violent as Muslims, which would be the inescapable corollary of your statement above.

CBW . . . seriously . . . when you tpe some of your standard BS, like the comment above,  do you ever step back and read it and just laugh?  You should because its some funny crap.  I ask though because the only question in my mind is whether your tortured arguments are intentional or ignorant?

Reasons for the 9/11 attacks according to the poeple who actually committed them:

In various pronouncements before and after the attacks, al-Qaeda explicitly cited three motives for its activities against Western countries: the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq.

Hmm, don't see "because you aren't Muslim" on that list. Do you?

Islamic extremism is fueled by many political and socioeconomic factors, just like extremism in almost every other aspect of human life. Islamic extremists have rarely ever attacked anyone for solely religious reasons. Take a look at the demands or reasons given by every Islamic attack that you can, and I guarantee you that you will find a political motive behind it. Terrorism is a POLITICAL ACT, NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

The goal of any conversionary faith is to grow the religion by getting people who aren't currently subscribers to it to become subscribers to it. You can't convert someone by killing them. Get a freaking clue, you mongoloid.

CBW, dude, that's a great quote about the 911 murderers and probably true but you've got to link it to something ...

My bad CK,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motives
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

The second link is the translation of Bin Laden's actual fatwa. It's quite lengthy, but provides an understanding of the reasoning behind the attacks.

[Col. Klink]

no, its not even "one or the other"; nobody gets to have their religion.

the whole concept of religion is what keeps us paranoid and divided.

Christianity isn't innocent. 

It ALL needs to be abandoned - the safe little fairy tale about seeing your family when you die, the defeatist "oh god made it that way" attitudes, the irreconcilable hatred of the "other"...

Don't you 21st century people see that religion is absolute bullsh*t!?


and if you're now going to argue with me that "no, christianity is the good religion - its Islam that is the crazy religion that won't allow anybody but Islamic people to live on the earth, including you, non-believer, so you better watch your ass too, they're coming for you too!" - then can we not just say that Islam absolutely needs to be eliminated in order to continue on with a (nonsubmissive) peaceful life on Earth?

You sure do have an odd view about religion. Sort of like learning history by watching All in the Family.

Which is kind of like learning history from reading the Bible ...

[CBWx2]

"Get a freaking clue, you mongoloid"    Here's hoping I don't create such a reaction.

Rather than posting back and forth ideas and links - I would recommend you find someone who in all likelihood does know the relationship between Islam and the non-Islamic world.

I know several of them. I have friends from Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Turkey, and Palestine. A very close friend of mine actually is an American born Muslim convert who studied abroad in Egypt for several years. Take this how you will, but I can tell by your comments with a pretty high degree of certainty that you know very little about the Muslim faith. There is no tenet in Islam to kill non-Muslims. What you are confusing as a tenet of the faith is the Muslim extremist interpretation of religious text. It's no different than how the KKK believes that the Bible supports their political agenda.

[dbucfan]

Take this how you will - no 'get a freaking clue you mongoloid'? 

You cut off the important portion of the post - and avoided the verification - at least in my eyes. 

I can tell from your comments there is no possibility in your mind that you might not be 100% right.  There is little sense in me offering you other information to consider. As to what I know about the muslim or islamic faiths - I know the tenet predated the extremists you reference.  I suspect you can verify that for yourself or not.