The Real Terror: The Rise of Xian Fundamentalism

freeyourmind

Hmm, I don't have too much of an opinion on the War on Iraq since I know very little, but although I'm not a big fan of Bush's methods, I think he differs from the Islamic fundamentalists and the Crusaders of past times in that he is not trying to spread Christianity. That's an important fact. Maybe he uses Christian messages as propaganda to convince Americans and Christians worldwide of the legitimacy of the war but the war itself is not for the purpose of furthering Christianity - but of crushing terror and perhaps (though I somewhat doubt it) of spreading democracy.
So maybe it's a case of "over-liberalism" where for the sake of noble ideas people do wrong things - like the headscarf ban in France, but it's not Christian fundamentalism I don't think...

Also, Ou Be, contrary to popular opinion, terror IS financed by money. Lots of it. And it is very carefully orchestrated. The great majority of terrorist attacks is not spontaneous acts by desperate individuals, but is complex operations generated by the professional terror machines.
I disagree with your point about the terrorists in Iraq also. The fact that people are poor doesn't give them justification to murder civilians and soldiers that are not harming them.
The fundamentalist Islamic terrorist attacks will stop when whoever's in charge of them decides that they stop. There will always be inspiration for attacks against the American forces. People should stop making this out as a war between Christianity and Islam because it's not a war between the two causes. It's a war between the American government and Islamic extremists, and the American government is there to further America's non-religious interests (whether those are peace in the US or oil from Iraq is debatable, myself I don't have an opinion but I don't think it's relevant for this particular debate). If America was there in the name of Christianity then the Afghanistan would have become a Christian country and Iraq would have been in the process of becoming one. Fact is, they aren't ;)

HU, I fail to see how the British atrocities of the past make you less afraid of terror. Do you mean that you think you deserve it? For the crimes committed long before you could have had any influence by a power that was not stopped by your ancestors? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. Who knows if they could have done anyway? And why would you have to suffer as a result even if they did?
Would you say the same thing about a different country? Would you say that Germans need to all be punished for the sins of their ancestors at the time of WW2? Somehow I don't think so...

Why was Spain "attacked"? Did 200 innocent civilians not die?

I also don't see what pacifism has to do with the willingness to get yourself murdered.

And lastly, what are the British crimes you are referring to? I'm not that fluent in European history. Are you talking about the time of the British and French mandates over the Middle East after WW1?

HomoUniversalis

The mandates are just a part. Adolf Hitler copied his Concentration camps from Winston Churchill, who not only exterminated many people in Iraq and other middle-eastern countries, but also used poison gas to strike fear into their hearts.

'He who remains ignorant of the past remains a child forever.'

I know what has happened in the past and how these people were abused, although I try to live according to a Gandhi principal, I do see the reason behind their hatred against us. That hatred is probably much more just than the hatred that Churchill showed them, or Bush is showing them.

Our way of foreign politics has consequences on the long therm, and I think we should be willing to accept them.

I do not believe the Germans should be punished as they have been punished enough. There is a large black page in their history, and they will never loose it. Churchill's acts have been forgotten however. We like to forget about our atrocities. Now, generations later they have come to remember us of it. They have come to teach us that our terrorist acts have consequences. I regret only Winston Churchill is not here to experience them.

I want to live, let that be clear, but I refuse to harm a person who has been abused, whose ancestors have been abused by us. It is the same respect I lend to black people since they too have been so terribly mistreated by us.

I hope I have made my view on this a bit more clear. Let it be clear, though, that I mourn the lives of those that died in Spain, and that I regret the events that caused their deaths.

HU

stalin6025

Bush and his Fundamentalsit talks have been talked about like a mantra since talk surfaced about the US plans to invade Iraq that Bush was after one thing, Iraqi oil.
Many also argue that a lot of the present rhetoric is fuelled by the profound influence Israel has over Washington. All this is alarming enough. But there is another aspect that is even more disturbing and needs to be seriously looked at.

I read on MSN an article on Bush and his intense religious beliefs. It explored in some detail the extent to which he relies on his fundamentalist Christian beliefs to guide him in virtually every major decision, including his intentions with regard to Iraq!

After reading it I was convinced that I was justified in arguing that in its Western interpretation, religion and matters of faith have no business whatsoever in politics or other matters involving the state.

freeyourmind

Originally posted by stalin6025
Bush and his Fundamentalsit talks have been talked about like a mantra since talk surfaced about the US plans to invade Iraq that Bush was after one thing, Iraqi oil.
Many also argue that a lot of the present rhetoric is fuelled by the profound influence Israel has over Washington. All this is alarming enough. But there is another aspect that is even more disturbing and needs to be seriously looked at.

I read on MSN an article on Bush and his intense religious beliefs. It explored in some detail the extent to which he relies on his fundamentalist Christian beliefs to guide him in virtually every major decision, including his intentions with regard to Iraq!

After reading it I was convinced that I was justified in arguing that in its Western interpretation, religion and matters of faith have no business whatsoever in politics or other matters involving the state.
All of what you say might be true, but the point I was trying to make was that even if Bush is a deeply religious man and uses his faith as a means by which to convince Christians to trust him, I don't think that the war on Iraq was really religiously-motivated - if the war's purpose wasn't to stop terror then it's likely that it's one of the reasons that you brought above, but very unlikely that the purpose was actually to spread Christianity or further its cause in anyway - unlike the fundamentalist Islamic acts - and therefore I do not consider the war to be a result of Christian fundamentalism.
But I agree, religion in general shouldn't have anything to do with state matters.

Ou Be Low hoo

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
I assume that by using the term "Xianity" that you do not believe that Christianity is a proper belief. If that was the case, then Bush's "references to the Bible", of which you've really posted none, shouldn't bother you any more than if he referenced any other written work. [QUOTE]

WOW! First off, Large Bow-wow...I used 'Xianity' to save typing space! Secondly, of course Xianity is a 'proper' belief because so many people belive in it! Thirdly, your basic grasp of my argument is so sadly lacking that you don't seem to understand the concept of it at all. To break it down for a simpleton: Bush uses Xian references so frequently in his speeches about the war on terror that of course it's going to offend people not of that persuasion. The underlying message is obvious...he's even stated it himself..."You're either with us or against us."

Your 4 points about what I refered to as biblical references are so ridiculous that I can't even bring myself to deal with them...all I will say is...go back and read them and see if you really think they have no biblical connotations at all...you might even suprise yourself.

Sure I used a google search! This one is completely beyond me...am I supposed to think I am any less knowledgable about Bush's Xian beliefs for doing so? I really don't grasp your point here...

I think it would be wonderful if we could all have a campfire and talk stories...sounds like world harmony to me...is THAT a bad thing to hope for no matter how unrealistic?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The fact that you state that "all I gathered from your "post" is: Terrorism good. Big bad Mr. X BAD" belies your complete ignorance and even basic reading skills...I made it quite clear how wicked I think terrorism is...that is IF you can understand a word like 'diabolical'. As for Mr. X...I think I mentioned the name of the person my fury was vented at...Let me help you...it begins with a 'B'...

Sure, leaders can mention spiritual beliefs, but when it is mixed with an attack on a very specific religious group(Islam) don't you think people will interpret the war as a religious one? That's a rhetorical question by the way...you're welcome.

As for the thing about the censorship thread...again words fail me at the bright light of your ignorance...your signiture says your DEFENCE is impregnable...is 'ignorance' your DEFENCE by any chance...

And finally, the name reference you use simply goes to add support to the belief that you are an immature fool...despite your 'mod' status.

Please do a google search before you come back with other statements for me to correct...my time is precious.

Haxxor

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Please do a google search before you come back with other statements for me to correct...my time is precious.

I think no one cares about you, or your "precious time." If you make two threads that totally contradict themselves, then of course many others, will be glad to point that out, as BSD has done in this thread.
Another thing, if you time is so "precious", then why do you come here and troll this place? Dont you know that trolling is now against the rules? I was just enlightening you.

I made my viewpoint that I agreed with your statement, even though the first post did not look typed, but more pasted from another source. You said nothing about my response. Then, when BSD makes his, based upon yours being Googled, you go and directly insult him. What the fuck? Then you claim he has used Google in his first pose in this thread. Ou Be Low hoo, since you started the subject, you knew that people were going to debate, which means an argument may or may not start....which it did, and it was all because of this thread. BSD had a different viewpoint of your thread, and he spoke his mind. The argument is your fault, since you have fueled it even more with a rebuttal, and a few insults. Now, all your time will be devoted towards an argument with BSD. See, you wasted your own "precious time."
Have a nice day. Oh, and FYI....dont insult mods, its not healthy for you.

Tempest01

posted by HU
This does not strike fear into my heart the very least because I know we, 'the West', 'the first world countries', 'civilisation' have deserved it.

So, because blacks were oppressed & abused in my country I deserve the same treatment? When does the hate & violence stop? I understand that you're saying it will stop with you, but you are only one person -- maybe your wife or your children or your parents will not feel the same about your Ghandi stance, and will act in your defense. THIS is the problem: we don't deserve to be killed because our ancestors killed. And we DON'T deserve to kill because our ancestors were killed. We are here, now & must act in response to what is right or wrong HERE, NOW.

Adolf Hitler copied his Concentration camps from Winston Churchill, who not only exterminated many people in Iraq and other middle-eastern countries, but also used poison gas to strike fear into their hearts.

Will you please point me to some evidence about this? I don't mean suggesting I search -- I want to know where YOU are getting this from. I'm not challenging you, but I'd be interested in reading your sources because not only have I not heard of this, neither has my history-buff husband. You may criticize me for being ignorant of this, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything about everything. Close, but not quite.... (heh heh)

Speaking of Hitler, I don't personally know anyone who blames the German people for the atrocities commited by that psycho & his little band of cohorts. The people were subject to military-backed coersion and an absence of choice, which is typical for a dictatorship. In fact, I've never heard anyone describe Hitler as anything other than a dictator -- and who holds the people responsible for the actions of a dictator? No one that I know, including Jewish friends. Perhaps I only know reasonable-minded people.....

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by BiggStankDogg
Oh, and while we're going tit for tat on spelling errors: "Outside of the US, most people overtly recognise...". I RECOGNIZE YOUR GRASP OF THE ENGLISH VOCABULARY.

BTW: Check an ENGLISH DICTIONARY before you try to correctly spell the word "defense" in my "signature". You might not look like an idiot when you post.

And so it continues...BEFORE you start barking like a poodle you should RECOGNISE that this most recent DEFENCE again shows your IGNORANCE of any other country than the one you pollute...those them there are ENGLISH words...not AMERICAN.

As for the rest of your reply...you REALLY don't understand the argument, so your rebuttals are a waste of time.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Haxxor
If you make two threads that totally contradict themselves, then of course many others, will be glad to point that out, as BSD has done in this thread.

You, like your brother-in-arms, simply don't understand the meaning of the threads. It's not your fault...I blame your parents.

Let me help...

One thread is about restrictions in what you can say. The other is about a president going about a religious war - evidenced by the target(Islam) and the underlying content of his rhetoric(Xian).

I hope this has cleared things up for you...

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Haxxor
I made my viewpoint that I agreed with your statement, even though the first post did not look typed, but more pasted from another source. You said nothing about my response. Then, when BSD makes his, based upon yours being Googled, you go and directly insult him. What the fuck? Then you claim he has used Google in his first pose in this thread. Ou Be Low hoo, since you started the subject, you knew that people were going to debate, which means an argument may or may not start....which it did, and it was all because of this thread. BSD had a different viewpoint of your thread, and he spoke his mind. The argument is your fault, since you have fueled it even more with a rebuttal, and a few insults. Now, all your time will be devoted towards an argument with BSD. See, you wasted your own "precious time."
Have a nice day. Oh, and FYI....dont insult mods, its not healthy for you.

1) Thanks for the compliment, but those were MY words.

2) The quotes were from google, but I was already aware they existed.

3) My response to his initial reply was an assertion of my previous post and an attempt to help him understand the bits he had trouble with.

4) I welcome informed argument and debate...that's the reason I posted it in the first place.

5) If mods speak shit, then I'll let them know about it...

6) You're speaking shit.

7) I have argued with BSG before regarding Bush and America...he lost and had nothing to reply with apart from getting angry and shouting a lot, so the argument ended...I shall try and raise the thread again for your benefit. (EDIT)...please check out 'the money grubbing has begun' thread...

8) Regarding the previous 7 points...you're welcome.

9) Oh...please include number 8 and this one in the 'YOU'RE WELCOME' platitude.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Also, Ou Be, contrary to popular opinion, terror IS financed by money. Lots of it. And it is very carefully orchestrated. The great majority of terrorist attacks is not spontaneous acts by desperate individuals, but is complex operations generated by the professional terror machines.

Of course money is needed...but if you compare your average rogue terrorist organisation AND even Al-Qaeda to the US Defence budget I think you'll get an idea of what I'm saying.

stalin6025

OBLH Please refrain from the consecutive posts. The 'EDIT' button is not there to be stared at and admired.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by stalin6025
Please refrain from the consecutive posts. The 'EDIT' button is not there to be stared at and admired.

Big deal...they're dealing with seperate points and are using seperate quotes.

stalin6025

Consecutive Quotes can be used by typing::

[ q u o t e ]

At the start of the paragraph of another you wish to quote and

[ / q u o t e ]

At the end of paragraphing the quote.
*Minus the spaces*

Example
And another

Although they may be dealing with different people/subjects/quotes it is still within the rules of the forum to not double post.
Thank you.

Ou Be Low hoo

Get over yourself.

Haxxor

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo

This calls for a rise in your warning level. You have directly, and blatently broken the rules. RULES are there for you to follow. Stop thinking that your better then everyone else. Its not my fault that you were beaten as a child. Follow the law, for you arent above it.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Haxxor
This calls for a rise in your warning level. You have directly, and blatently broken the rules. RULES are there for you to follow. Stop thinking that your better then everyone else. Its not my fault that you were beaten as a child. Follow the law, for you arent above it.

What a joke you 'moderators' have become! You seem to think that you are irreproachable because you have the ability to delete a thread! It seriously highlights your stupidity...power in the hands of infants is a dangerous concoction!

Some patheitc moderator takes the time to say "ooohh, don't post consecutively", yet there are spam music threads that mods post on by the minute it and threads devoted to saying something banal about the person above you!!!!!!!!!!

AND then there are mods that use their status to refer to my real name which is only accessable by viewing my email address...WHICH coincidently, is under the box 'not to be displayed in public' for that very reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The majority of you are fucking hypocrites and have a level of intelligence on par with a 15yr old high school drop-out.

The fact that you(Haxxor) first stated you agreed with my post and THEN changed it because I didn't get all sychophantic on your ass, shows the level of your character...

"You make me sad."

Haxxor

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
What a joke you 'moderators' have become! You seem to think that you are irreproachable because you have the ability to delete a thread! It seriously highlights your stupidity...power in the hands of infants is a dangerous concoction!

Some patheitc moderator takes the time to say "ooohh, don't post consecutively", yet there are spam music threads that mods post on by the minute it and threads devoted to saying something banal about the person above you!!!!!!!!!!

AND then there are mods that use their status to refer to my real name which is only accessable by viewing my email address...WHICH coincidently, is under the box 'not to be displayed in public' for that very reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The majority of you are fucking hypocrites and have a level of intelligence on par with a 15yr old high school drop-out.

The fact that you(Haxxor) first stated you agreed with my post and THEN changed it because I didn't get all sychophantic on your ass, shows the level of your character...

"You make me sad."

First off...I never said that I wanted you to go all apeshit on me. I was trying to tell you not to go all apeshit on BSD. I was also telling you to not disrespect mods. Im not aksing you...Im telling you. See, mods are like Gestapo Agents...we are the enforcers of the site. If Neo has to deal with something, it means that we as mods havent done our job fully. Im personally going to see that your either suspended for a while, or permanently banned for this kind of childish behavior.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Haxxor
I stated that I agreed with what you posted. I never said anything about me respecting you. I only respect people who deserve it. Oh, and btw...read my signature...and you'll know what I think of this.

WHo the fuck said anything about respect?!?!?! I'm saying that you are a pathetic sheep...and if you 'don't give a damn' why are you even responding to this? You idiot.

Haxxor

You might actualkly want to read my edited post...before jumping the gun...dipshit. I hit the reply button by mistake, before I could respond correctly.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Haxxor
First off...I never said that I wanted you to go all apeshit on me. I was trying to tell you not to go all apeshit on BSD. I was also telling you to not disrespect mods. Im not aksing you...Im telling you. See, mods are like Gestapo Agents...we are the enforcers of the site. If Neo has to deal with something, it means that we as mods havent done our job fully. Im personally going to see that your either suspended for a while, or permanently banned for this kind of childish behavior.

To be perfectly honest, I really don't give a shit. This post of yours perfectly highlights your stupidity, ignorance and over-sized('economy' to BSG) ego...you really think being a mod at this internet site makes you important?

As for MY childish behaviour...give me a break! If BSG responds the way HE did I am perfectly within my rights to respond the way I did...

I await your ban, oh-powerful-supreme-intelligent one...

Haxxor

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
To be perfectly honest, I really don't give a shit. This post of yours perfectly highlights your stupidity, ignorance and over-sized('economy' to BSG) ego...you really think being a mod at this internet site makes you important?

As for MY childish behaviour...give me a break! If BSG responds the way HE did I am perfectly within my rights to respond the way I did...

I await your ban, oh-powerful-supreme-intelligent one...

You think Im bluffing? Ok. Fine by me, go ahead and find out if I am. My ego has nothing to do with this. Yours does seem to have a lot to do with it though. Any time someone dissagrees with you, you get angry, as if your right, and they are always wrong. You then flame them....which a lot of your posts are flames, and trolling behvaior....hmmm, those are against the RULES. Rules made by the admins....and not the mods, so if you have a problem with them, then take it up with them. Ok, since I am really tired right now, Im going to go to sleep after this post. I just want to say something before I bid you farewell until next time.

My intelligence is unfathomable compared to yours. At least I wouldnt use Google for information. I would access the information on a different field, and then store the damn memory in my mind. My IQ is around 170, which is pretty smart, and that also means that I have a lot of common sense. People like you think that they are better, and claim to be perfect in every way. I, and the other type of people like me, have been created to show you an imperfection....you. Intelligence is the ability to store information, common sense is the ability to use that stored information. Ccmmon sense is what you need to be successful in life. Looks like your SHIT OUTTA LUCK my freind. You can go ahead and have your perfection, and your supposed intelligence....and I will go ahead and have a great group of friend online, and irl, and I wont be alone, mush as to where you will be. Well, goodnight Mr. SmartAss.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Haxxor
My ego has nothing to do with this.

You're right...I'm stupid. One thing though...how can you say the above quote, then go on and bloat like this for a whole paragraph???????????????!?!?!??!....

My intelligence is unfathomable compared to yours. At least I wouldnt use Google for information. I would access the information on a different field, and then store the damn memory in my mind. My IQ is around 170, which is pretty smart, and that also means that I have a lot of common sense. People like you think that they are better, and claim to be perfect in every way. I, and the other type of people like me, have been created to show you an imperfection....you. Intelligence is the ability to store information, common sense is the ability to use that stored information. Ccmmon sense is what you need to be successful in life. Looks like your SHIT OUTTA LUCK my freind. You can go ahead and have your perfection, and your supposed intelligence....and I will go ahead and have a great group of friend online, and irl, and I wont be alone, mush as to where you will be. Well, goodnight Mr. SmartAss.

Is your intelligence 'unfathomable' in that is so miniscule that it's almost incomprehensible that you function as a human being, or do you mean 'unfathomable' in a very large and deep way? I can't work it out...

As for google...what the fuck are you talking about? I used the search to get the exact quote I was looking for! You sad, sad little man. Sweet dreams...

HomoUniversalis

Please refrain from flaming in this thread, Ou Be Low Hoo. If you have a problem with any of the moderators, I suggest you pm them about it, or the administrator.
You have a problem with authority, Ou Be Low Hoo. You believe you are special, that somehow the rules do not apply to you. Obviously, you are mistaken.
Before responding, I suggest you think about what you are going to post and whether it is really worth posting.

HU

Haxxor

Fine Ou Be....you win. There is no point in arguing with you. This is pointless. I said my points, you said yours, and we havent reached a compromise. Im not going to reply in this thread anymore...unless I feel the extreme need to. You win.

HomoUniversalis

BiggStankDogg, although I agree with you on all counts, I must mention one thing. Not because it is off-topic, but simply because it needs to be stated.

There are several variations to 'English'. For one, you have British English, which spells defense as defense. Than you have American English, which spells defence as defence.

Neither forms are wrong, and both are perfectly English. The difference is that one form is used in American English, the other in British English.

Although I am a purist, I do not always write the correct form, since I sometimes think further than my English (be it British, be it American) vocabulary takes me. I do believe that there is sense in trying to use the correct spelling, and try to stick to one form of English.

However, from a member that insinuates to be excellent at British English, I would expect "Christianity" and not Xianity. I guess BiggStankDogg is correct here. You are indeed a hypocrite, and this I find sad, since I really think you have a good point sometimes.

Homo Universalis

freeyourmind

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Of course money is needed...but if you compare your average rogue terrorist organisation AND even Al-Qaeda to the US Defence budget I think you'll get an idea of what I'm saying.
Still, my point remains the same:
Do you not think by making Xianity a direct force behind America's 'War on Terror' half the globe is being alienated? It's no wonder that even temperate Muslims view the 'War on Terror' as a direct assult on their beliefs and their way of life.

The majority of the Muslim nations under attack are poor, so their only response to what they see as a fully fledged 'war' is through diabolical acts of terrorism as they lack the capabilities in the most part to act in any other way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from this I presume you mean that the Muslims under attack misinterpret the American war on Iraq as a war against their religions, when in fact Christianity is only being used in order to inspire the Americans.
If this is indeed the case, then what I was trying to say was that the terrorist attacks aren't orchestrated by the odd people who mistake the American's real intentions, but by organisations that set for themselves as a goal to kill Amrican people. These organisations are headed by fanatics already, no matter what the Americans do - they'll still be on their sights until they get out of it - my point being that if tommorow all Christian references are ceased, the attacks will nevertheless continue.
We're not going to see an end to the covert terrorists attacks from the Muslim side, until we see a ceasing of the more cryptically covered Xian ones.
Again, I am not sure I understand you. Do you think the war's REAL intentions were to spread Christianity, or to do its bidding in any other way? And if so, how?
Because the Islamic attacks are done directly in the name of (albeit twisted) Islam - to spread Islam and kill the infidels. If the Americans' motives are different then it's important to clear up.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Please refrain from flaming in this thread, Ou Be Low Hoo. If you have a problem with any of the moderators, I suggest you pm them about it, or the administrator.
You have a problem with authority, Ou Be Low Hoo. You believe you are special, that somehow the rules do not apply to you. Obviously, you are mistaken.
Before responding, I suggest you think about what you are going to post and whether it is really worth posting.

It's so very sad that you can only single me out for 'flaming'...have you read BSD's initial reply? If he has a right to argue against my post(which of course he has), then it should be intrinsic that I can do the same to his.

I only have a problem with bloated authority...this site has too many moderators. It's nearly impossible to find a member who has been on this site for a while, without them being a moderator! This has the effect of instilling a belief in those of you I'm referring to as if YOU think you are above everyone else. It's called 'abuse of power'...I think...wait...let me just check google....

After I responded to the posts from Haxxor and BSG I attempted to return this thread to it's original topic - away from the flame broiling - BUT it was a moderator who returned to start the flaming all over again...although we have settled our differences and she has deleted the inflammatory remark. This was then picked up by Haxxor and continued by HU and, of course, BSD...

As for BSD, I'm sorry to say, but he is an imbecile...he fails to understand the core point of the thread, yet carries on like a guiding light in a shadow of darkness - his posturing is quite comical though, which is one bonus to his posts...

I don't know how many times you have posted stupid threads about intercourse with animals and vegetables getting it on.

I do! 1 time...and it was swiftly banned! It was a response to the amount of other bullshit threads that were being posted...'Have you ever danced in the rain', etc, etc, etc...the technique is called 'irony', by the way...quite clearly this escaped you.

Instead of having your bullshit exposed on REAL issues, you hide behind semantics and linguistics to divert your excuse for an argument.

My dear, dear, dear BSD...how short your memory is! Please recheck this thread and see who originally brought up an argument about linguistics.

So there it is...my final post regarding the infantile antics of some of the mods here...hypocrites, ignorants and sheep...

I hope you follow the words of gospel you spout to me, and PM me if you have a problem rather than ruining a thread you are unable to comprehend.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Again, I am not sure I understand you. Do you think the war's REAL intentions were to spread Christianity?

I don't think the MAIN intention of the war is to spread Xianity, but rather it is an underlying factor of it. How else can the war be perceived by Islamic nations as anything other than an ideological assult on their beliefs, when Bush continually asserts 'God'(the Xian one...) being on his side?

When one party aims at a specific religious group(Muslims), then of course the party in opposition will see it as a religious war when taken in context of what Bush says in his speeches!

Therefore you get the oppositions of Islamic fundamentalists V Xian fundamentalists.

Jebulum

Funny thread to read tho.

Valasher

OBLH, nobody has your email address except for me, and I didn't give it out. I just dropped the reference and BSD picked it up.

Did you know that Martha Stewart probably wouldn't have all of these problems of being found guilty if she'd remember the basic principles of life, or the GOLDEN RULE, which is 'treat people how you yourself would want to be treated'. You can have everything you want, but if you don't treat others with respect (this means not calling other people idiots, even if you know that they are, whether or not they are), then you're libel to be brought down by 'the man'. Unfortunately, our moderators are 'the man'.

To everyone else: Just to get our rules straight, it doesn't matter if someone double or even triple posts if it's all on topic. And spam is never an intelligent post. Spam is one or two words, or someone wasting space saying something of little or no intelligence, like "Dogs are cool" when the thread has absolutely nothing to do with dogs.

HomoUniversalis

Matthew 7:12. Interesting note in this thread :).

95% of the American population is religious, ergo, believe there is a god. This does not mean that all of this population are Christian, or Xian, since there are also Muslims, Jews, and other forms of religion (melting pot).

From this can be derived, that if the US is to be democratic, 95% of the government has to be religious. If religion is completely separated from government, it is no democracy, since a government should represent all levels of a human life. To most christians a church is very important, to a government not acknowledging Christianity, churches are not important and might decide to remove them all together, against the wishes of the people.

Our morals, and our view on society are extremely colored by the Catholic Church and the Bible, whether one is catholic or not. The catholic church had a lot of influence on government and our lives a long time ago, and it has permanently influenced our view.

Thus, to state that government and religion should be separated is nonsense. If 100% of a country is Christian, than I think the president/Prime-Minister should express his Christianity, and act from it.

Perhaps, Ou Be Low Hoo, we should attempt to inform people about the 'bad side' of Religion, and how the believe in God is futile, instead of blaming the government for representing the ignorant (if one would state that people who believe in God are ignorant, and from my current point of view, the view of an atheist, I find myself capable of stating that.).

HU

Helios

A democracy could easily not have anything to do with each other and it should be that way, the goverment can regcodnise that particular group without ever getting involved, thet fact that they do is whats the problem

Especially a country like the united states should have any dealings with any church, the so called melting pot of the world which represents many many different religons and beliefs but should not have any "meddling" with it outside of simple recodnition

sure if a country is 100% a religon it would be of no consequence why not be apart of goverment but the U.S goverment is very far from having any one religon dominate, it would only make sense it say Israel where just about everyone is of Jewish faith

"There could be no issue between the Church and the State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church"

HomoUniversalis

I always like to compare Islamic countries' culture with ours in these discussions.

If I rape a young girl here, I will be locked up (hopefully), If I rape a young girl in an Islamic country the community will beat the fuck out of me and chase a bullet or other sharp object through my head.

Obviously, there is a difference in culture. For some reason, people there believe rape is worse than murder. Here we believe murder than rape. This has nothing to do with us being more smart, intelligent, intelectual, or better than Islamic countries. Rather, with our religious view on life.

I, an atheist, am very well aware of the power of the church on our lives. Some people the catholic church to be weakened, but they are really incredibly powerful.

Our system of government represents our system of culture and moral, and therewith our religion, as it's, unfortunately, a part of it.

Sure, the church should not be able to tell what's going on, but remember that Bush is not a rabbi or a priest. He is simply a christian. Actually, the way he governs, he doesn't take much consideration to Matthew, book 7, he should definetely read Matthew 7:12.

I love fiction :).

HU

Jebulum

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Matthew 7:12. Interesting note in this thread :).

95% of the American population is religious, ergo, believe there is a god. This does not mean that all of this population are Christian, or Xian, since there are also Muslims, Jews, and other forms of religion (melting pot).

From this can be derived, that if the US is to be democratic, 95% of the government has to be religious. If religion is completely separated from government, it is no democracy, since a government should represent all levels of a human life. To most christians a church is very important, to a government not acknowledging Christianity, churches are not important and might decide to remove them all together, against the wishes of the people.

Our morals, and our view on society are extremely colored by the Catholic Church and the Bible, whether one is catholic or not. The catholic church had a lot of influence on government and our lives a long time ago, and it has permanently influenced our view.

Thus, to state that government and religion should be separated is nonsense. If 100% of a country is Christian, than I think the president/Prime-Minister should express his Christianity, and act from it.

Perhaps, Ou Be Low Hoo, we should attempt to inform people about the 'bad side' of Religion, and how the believe in God is futile, instead of blaming the government for representing the ignorant (if one would state that people who believe in God are ignorant, and from my current point of view, the view of an atheist, I find myself capable of stating that.).

HU

mmm. Religion and politics have been separated over 200 years ago in my country, and it works fine that way. if 10% of the population play videogames, do you think there should be at least 10% of gamers in the government too ?

i find the intrusion of religions in politics somewhat shocking. Not that they shouldn't get respected but that is not the place they belong to.

i was listening Bush's speech when the astronausts died in space, and when i heard him saying 'god bless them, we must thanks god etc' , i was like WTF are you babling about ?

If my president used such semantic, he would get his arse kicked the next election. Being agnostic and feeling annoyed at the constant christian rethoric Mr bush is using, i can totally understand that a person with a personnal belief find America's speech provocative.

As for Xianity trying to impush its ideas over others, that has always been the case and always will be. This is the case of any religion/person/country that believes it has the truth over others.

At the end, it is a simple clash of wills. That was the case for any country which has been influencial in the past, from romans up to portugal,uk,france etc...that's not a big deal, just the normal evolution of our civilisation. You can choose to fight the system, or not. people with the strongest will do always win.

Helios

Has not anyone noticed that only the monotheistic religons (belief in one god) mainly those of Christianity,Judaism and Islam are the only ones that have these extremist that are constantly trying to "force" upon others their beliefs you see none of this with say Buddaism or Taoism and even in countries where these religons are the majority like India where most are Buddist or Hindust the goverment is not "saturated" if you will with the religon it is aknowledged but not preached or brandished by goverment , maybe thats why the asian countries stil consider the west backwards they long ago have realised the benefits of seperating State from the church, "yuor" beliefs are just that your beliefs no one else's

the US is already is trying to homogenize the world with big buissness now they are almost taking the same role with religon

freeyourmind

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
I don't think the MAIN intention of the war is to spread Xianity, but rather it is an underlying factor of it. How else can the war be perceived by Islamic nations as anything other than an ideological assult on their beliefs, when Bush continually asserts 'God'(the Xian one...) being on his side?

When one party aims at a specific religious group(Muslims), then of course the party in opposition will see it as a religious war when taken in context of what Bush says in his speeches!

Therefore you get the oppositions of Islamic fundamentalists V Xian fundamentalists.
Okay, what you're saying here is either 1)the war was motivated by Christianity but was not meant to spread it, or 2)due to Bush's poor choice of words the war is percieved as a religious one by the Islamic nations.

If it's 1) then I'll need to hear some proof. What could the war possible have to do with Xianity? I haven't listened to many of Bush's speeches but from what I heard he never brings any proof from the scriptures as justification for the war. If it's 2), then I agree with you, Bush in general makes a mess of his speeches, and anyhow the propoganda a person uses to convince the people on his side is bound to get the people on the other side angry. As a rule propoganda sucks. But if that's the case then your thread should be named "The Real Terror: Bush's assheadedness in speeches".

I'm afraid I still can't see what any one of the two options mentioned above have to do with what you wanted to say :(

freeyourmind

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Matthew 7:12. Interesting note in this thread :).

95% of the American population is religious, ergo, believe there is a god. This does not mean that all of this population are Christian, or Xian, since there are also Muslims, Jews, and other forms of religion (melting pot).

From this can be derived, that if the US is to be democratic, 95% of the government has to be religious. If religion is completely separated from government, it is no democracy, since a government should represent all levels of a human life. To most christians a church is very important, to a government not acknowledging Christianity, churches are not important and might decide to remove them all together, against the wishes of the people.
I'm afraid gonna have to disagree with that. For one, since America is a melting pot, you can't make state rules that would be acceptable on everyone. The Xian, Jewish and Islamic rules are completely different - like Helios said, this kind of thing would only make sense in a one-religioun state, although Israel isn't a good example of this - 20% of Israelis are Arab and about 50% is secular Jews.
Secondly, there's more to a democracy then representation of all layers of society. There are also things like rights of minorities. In a proper democracy neither religion nor secularism would be forced on anyone. There is no problem in being religios under a secular rule - as long as it doesn't force its secularism on the religious - therefore a government would never be allowed to remove any religion's churches altogether or at all ;)
Thus, to state that government and religion should be separated is nonsense. If 100% of a country is Christian, than I think the president/Prime-Minister should express his Christianity, and act from it.
I agree with you completely. All we need to do now is find a country that is 100% Christian... Is the Vatican one maybe?
Perhaps, Ou Be Low Hoo, we should attempt to inform people about the 'bad side' of Religion, and how the believe in God is futile, instead of blaming the government for representing the ignorant (if one would state that people who believe in God are ignorant, and from my current point of view, the view of an atheist, I find myself capable of stating that.).

HU
That's a good idea, apart from the ignorant bit :D Trying to resolve differences would very often be more productive than bitching and whinging like little school girls :D :p

DPD

95% of the population here is religious? From where are these statistics taken? Can not people believe in God and still not be religious? Although there are many religions and a great deal of religious people here in the USA, I seriously doubt that 95% of the population is religious as in practicing a daily/weekly/monthly ritual, homage or other ceremony to the god(s) of their choice.

Jebulum

People are elected to represent a population, not because they are representative of that population. If you check by genders/species you'll see slight difference, and may i add, thanx god for that, or you'd also need 66 % of dumbasses.

So to the fact a president must be christian to represent a population christian in majority, i'd say no.

HomoUniversalis

Originally posted by DPD
95% of the population here is religious? From where are these statistics taken? Can not people believe in God and still not be religious? Although there are many religions and a great deal of religious people here in the USA, I seriously doubt that 95% of the population is religious as in practicing a daily/weekly/monthly ritual, homage or other ceremony to the god(s) of their choice.

[adj] having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude"

With religious I mean people who believe a deity exists. I'm sorry for not making that clear enough.

Naturally, minorities should be represented, but minorities should not become a main concern. However, the law is the law, and if believes of a people go against that law, they should not come to a country with such laws. For example, the Dutch minister of deportation (j/k, she just handles the refugee-'problems' ), went to a Islamic school, and asked the children what was most important, the law, or the Koran. The children responded that they thought of the Koran as more important, and that if the two conflicted, they would choose the Koran above the law. This is plain wrong. The law is what keeps the people and the government in line, without it, our system of government falls apart.

Dumbasses? Define Dumbasses? Are people with lower IQ, lower income or any such thing less capable of representing themselves and others in a government? Personally, I believe Bush to be a dumbass, but that would force me to define dumbass, so never mind that ;).

If a population is largly christian, these people will think from Christian views, views stated in (I believe) the King James Bible. Naturally, the president does not need to be Christian to understand the morals in which his people believe, but it does make sense for a people of which 95% is religious (see beginning post for explanation of what I define as religious) for a government to be religious as well, if the government is to optimally represent the people. It's all about empathy. Personally, as an atheïst, I have problems thinking like Christians, since I do not understand how they believe as they believe. To me, the concept is ridicule, therefor beliefs that come from that prime-belief are also, ridiculous. This will certainly make it hard for me to represent my people.

Resolve things? Nothing would please me more. However, The Koran and the Bible and our laws are not compatible. We have different morals. They conflict, and conflicts of this magnitude lead to wars and deaths. I would rather have that we leave the people there alone. Although, as we caused the unstable governments in the Middle-east, it is hard to leave them now. War however, will not solve the problem. Bitching? I never suggested bitching or whining, rather trying to convince people religion is crap.

There are two reasons why a terrorist exists. First, we abused his people until he had nothing left. Second, he is promised by religion that if he dies for the Jyhad and his people, he will have 72 virgins to play cards with. At least, if religion is no more, the last reason will exist no more.

Than why the hell did we abuse those people? We believe that our Religion, that our System is superior to dictatorship. I ask you here, what is the difference? Do you believe the poor of a Democracy think more of their government than the poor in a dictatorship? Personally, I think they both think pretty low of their government.

Freedom? Interesting word, that. But what is freedom? Freedom is the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion.. Freedom is a circle. Here is a definition of Freedom:

[n] the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
[n] immunity from an obligation or duty

The condition of being free? Again, a circle. Act or speak? In that case, only a system of anarchy has freedom. Obligation or duty? What happens to a person in our system if he does not work, if he does not want to work? We all embrace him and have a group hug, right?

HU

freeyourmind

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Naturally, minorities should be represented, but minorities should not become a main concern. However, the law is the law, and if believes of a people go against that law, they should not come to a country with such laws. For example, the Dutch minister of deportation (j/k, she just handles the refugee-'problems' ), went to a Islamic school, and asked the children what was most important, the law, or the Koran. The children responded that they thought of the Koran as more important, and that if the two conflicted, they would choose the Koran above the law. This is plain wrong. The law is what keeps the people and the government in line, without it, our system of government falls apart.
Firstly, minorities not only need representation, but they actually also need protection from the majority. For example, it would be undemocratic, even if the great majority of the country supported it, to say, put the blacks back to slavery in the US. There are what, like 10% percent blacks in America? Why wouldn't it make sense for the other 90% good time to be more important than these blacks? Fact is here justice comes into play. This kind of law would be grossly unjust, and therefore a democracy, BECAUSE it is a democracy, would not accept this rule. There are other restrictions to the idea of rule by majority apart from the aforementioned one. I don't remember them all but I know that there are a few. Once again, there is more to a democracy than doing the majority's bidding...

Secondly, even if you're right, and religion does in fact undermine the government's authority and shouldn't be as important to the religious as it is today, the fact is that you can't fight it. No government can fight a whole religion. When people truly believe then they will fight you to the bitter end. The only ways for a government to enforce its rules to a level that they would be kept more strictly than those of any religion is by quashing a people's soul and intervening in their life in a way that would leave no place for democracy - as long as a country's democratic, it's going to have to learn to deal with religion in its public, whether it likes it or not.

Thirdly, one of the most groundbreaking concepts that democracy brought was the complete freedom to practise religion regardless of anyone else's belief on the subject of god. If a country takes that away then it takes away one of the biggest things democracy stands for - in the end a democratic country has to make concessions about its control of its people. A country that controls its people's lives completely is totalitarian.
What I'm saying here is that a religion and the law of a democracy should never conflict, since thinking up a law that would compromise people's freedom to partake in their religion is an undemocratic act - if a situation like this arises then the fault is with the government, not with the religious citizens.
If you have any law in mind that would be essential for a country to a point that it could justify violating the right of freedom I'll be glad to hear of it (seriously, hit me).
If a population is largely Christian, these people will think from Christian views, views stated in (I believe) the King James Bible. Naturally, the president does not need to be Christian to understand the morals in which his people believe, but it does make sense for a people of which 95% is religious (see beginning post for explanation of what I define as religious) for a government to be religious as well, if the government is to optimally represent the people. It's all about empathy.
I'm assuming that by "largely Christian" you mean belonging to the same sect of Christianity. If we ignore the minority issue for a minute here then yes, this kind of idea would make sense, but the fact is, there doesn't exist a place in the world (again, maybe apart from the Vatican - I really have no clue) where things are like this. If a law is good for Catholics, then chances are its bad for Protestants, and is even more likely bad to the Jews, Muslims, any other cults in the area and people that don't belong to any religion at all.

So what would a country achieve by this? All it would do is get a lot of people pissed off. Forcing the rules of a religion on a country is not a necessary thing. The practises of the ruling religion would follow the laws anyhow, so there's no appeasing them in making their laws state-impelled. If the point is to FORCE their religion on people who don't believe in it then thank you very much but screw them. This is where freedom of religion stops - when it compromises anyone else's freedom of religion (or non-religion).

What a state should do, I think, if it has a large religious (I'm getting tired of typing this word... :p ) sector, is to make it easier for the population to practise their religion. It doesn't have to be something drastic, but just some time and effort invested in making the commandments of their respective scriptures easier to follow.
Personally, as an atheïst, I have problems thinking like Christians, since I do not understand how they believe as they believe. To me, the concept is ridicule, therefor beliefs that come from that prime-belief are also, ridiculous. This will certainly make it hard for me to represent my people.
Fine by me. As long as you say very clearly on your elections campaign that you don't give a rat's arse about religion. If the people still choose you then they can't complain afterwards. It's their own goddamned problem for putting a nutcase like you into office. :p
Resolve things? Nothing would please me more. However, The Koran and the Bible and our laws are not compatible. We have different morals. They conflict, and conflicts of this magnitude lead to wars and deaths. I would rather have that we leave the people there alone. Although, as we caused the unstable governments in the Middle-east, it is hard to leave them now. War however, will not solve the problem. Bitching? I never suggested bitching or whining, rather trying to convince people religion is crap.
Sounds to me like you're talking about relations with foreign countries now. With that I don't know what to tell you. It's not your job to make peace with the mid-east, but that's a whole different, probably much more complex argument.

I'm talking about the rights of a country to its citizens. I don't think there's a reason why state and religion shouldn't get along together. I think (and many have told me they agree with this) that religion is fine as long as it doesn't force anything on non-practitioners. A very simple rule I think. When there's a conflict of interest then either the state or the deistic (I'm expanding my vocabulary :D ) have broken this rule. Whichever side had done so is in the wrong and should change its ways.

Oh, and about the bitching, that comment wasn't directed towards you. I just seized the opportunity to declare that :D It was semi-comical :p - I was saying it was a good idea to discuss it between people rather than complain to the authorities already. I actually agreed with your point ;)
There are two reasons why a terrorist exists. First, we abused his people until he had nothing left. Second, he is promised by religion that if he dies for the Jyhad and his people, he will have 72 virgins to play cards with. At least, if religion is no more, the last reason will exist no more.
Off topic and a big subject, but wtf.
I disagree with this commonly used reasoning. There are always people who suffer. There always have been and there always will be. Sometimes desperate and suffering people do bad things, but terrorism is different from the desperate actions of a man driven crazy in that they are political and carefully planned. There will always be men with inspiration for terror, or at least for doing damage to people, but they will only manage to do serious damage when there is a strong terrorist infrastructure behind them.

If we turn all completely saintly so that there is nothing anyone could possible comprehend that may be wrong with the way we act then maybe terrorism will cease after a couple of years, when all past sins are forgotten. Maybe not. But if terrorism is stricken at the roots, through the leaders, through the economical backing, then there will be nothing left and the desperate people, however sad their story may be, will not be able to do serious damage if at all.

My point being, if you take religion away from the equation then yes, terrorists would have one less reason, but that would leave them with another million or so.

Like BSD said, these things shouldn't be attacked through religion. Anyone can say he's doing something in the name of religion. The moment he affects others by it then he has stepped out of the line and needs to be punished accordingly :)
Than why the hell did we abuse those people? We believe that our Religion, that our System is superior to dictatorship. I ask you here, what is the difference? Do you believe the poor of a Democracy think more of their government than the poor in a dictatorship? Personally, I think they both think pretty low of their government.
True, the fact that there are poor is a great failure of whoever's in power, but from what you say here it sounds like you agree that the middle and upper classes do enjoy the benefits of democracy. Does that amount to nothing in your eyes?

Continued...

freeyourmind

Freedom? Interesting word, that. But what is freedom? Freedom is the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion.. Freedom is a circle. Here is a definition of Freedom:

[n] the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
[n] immunity from an obligation or duty

The condition of being free? Again, a circle. Act or speak? In that case, only a system of anarchy has freedom. Obligation or duty? What happens to a person in our system if he does not work, if he does not want to work? We all embrace him and have a group hug, right?

HU
I don't think I agree with that definition. I think freedom is subjective. Ultimate freedom would indeed be anarchy, but what I am (and I think democracy is) claiming, is that more freedom then what was given through the totalitarian systems of the past is owed to the people - that being more free than before would vastly improve our situation.
Every freedom has its limits; we just pushed them further away than they were before. :)

Sorry for the two posts. There's wasn't enough room in the first post for all this :D

Tempest01

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I don't think there's a reason why state and religion shouldn't get along together. I think (and many have told me they agree with this) that religion is fine as long as it doesn't force anything on non-practitioners. A very simple rule I think. When there's a conflict of interest then either the state or the deistic (I'm expanding my vocabulary :D ) have broken this rule. Whichever side had done so is in the wrong and should change its ways.

I agree with most of what you've written, and the very reasonable way in which you've written it. I have to bring up this point though, because lately we have a few prime examples of state & religion in major conflict..... ie homosexuality & roe v. wade. Both are in serious straits right now, the one on the verge of being named a constitutionally-supported justification for discrimination, and the other of being overturned (god have mercy on us all....). Both are the result of intense christian pressure....and not just from radical christian groups.

I don't think there's any room at all for a marriage of church & state, because the Church always believes that it has the ONLY correct answer for the right way of living. And the church has very distinctive prejudices (about homosexuality, abortion, sex, etc). On the other hand, HU, recognize that by saying you want to educate them all to your way of thinking ('we should attempt to inform people about the 'bad side' of Religion, and how the believe in God is futile') you sound exactly like the christians. I do not mean this as a criticism, just an observation. If you are allowed to believe what you want to believe, why shouldn't others have the same right? How can one better oneself by despising others for having conflicting beliefs? I am an atheist too, but not only can I not prove there IS a god, I also cannot prove there ISN'T. Frankly, I don't feel the need to do either.

Anyway, this is not to say that I believe a leader must have an absence of religion -- how can a leader protect anyone's freedoms if he himself cannot experience them? It is not off, however, to fear the amount of religious influence in Bush's decisions. Personally, I openly admit to equating "Republican" with "Christian." It's a bias, most assuredly, but it is not without substance in my personal experience. The problem stems from the fact that a religion speaks for itself, and a leader must speak for us all. Christianity in particular has proven its inability to be open to differences. EDIT: Still, it is an election year, and Bush doesn't exactly have the crown in the bag. It will be very close, I'm sure, but at this point Bush has his fair share of strongly-impassioned detractors to worry about. My personal suspicion is that all the anti-gay stuff going on is to pull the usual crowd of non-voters out of the woodwork -- you know, the hicks who normally can't be bothered to vote but CAN be bothered to jump on the hate bandwagon....

Off topic and a big subject, but wtf.
I disagree with this commonly used reasoning. There are always people who suffer. There always have been and there always will be. Sometimes desperate and suffering people do bad things, but terrorism is different from the desperate actions of a man driven crazy in that they are political and carefully planned. There will always be men with inspiration for terror, or at least for doing damage to people, but they will only manage to do serious damage when there is a strong terrorist infrastructure behind them.

My point being, if you take religion away from the equation then yes, terrorists would have one less reason, but that would leave them with another million or so.

My husband believes that terrorism doesn't start from religious fervor, but from sick & twisted individuals who simply use the passion of religion to their favor -- it is the clever manipulation of people who are easily preyed upon because they are vulnerable for whatever reason, thru arguments they can readily be brainwashed into understanding & agreeing with.

In that light, a reasonable mind can not hate muslims for the actions of a few freaks, right? Ironic how easy it is for the rest of the world to hate Americans, however, and yet expect us to be non-critical of everyone.

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Okay, what you're saying here is either 1)the war was motivated by Christianity but was not meant to spread it, or 2)due to Bush's poor choice of words the war is percieved as a religious one by the Islamic nations.

I'm afraid I still can't see what any one of the two options mentioned above have to do with what you wanted to say :(

Bush - Xian references in his speeches, backing the divinity of the war.
Target - Muslim groups. (They are NOT Xians)
Result - holy war

Whether this is intended by Bush or not is not really the point. It's the fact that the Muslim groups perceive it as one on the evidence of the rhetoric. Therefore they will not stop until the perceived threat on THEIR beliefs ceases.

Of course, even if the Xian rhetoric did cease, who can say if the terrorist threat would...?

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Tempest01
Ironic how easy it is for the rest of the world to hate Americans, however, and yet expect us to be non-critical of everyone.

America is THE most powerful country in the world in the three factors that perhaps matter most: economy, military might and media saturation. These are not 'faults' of America, but the rest of the world can view this power as having an uncontrollable affect on their way of life and beliefs. This is not to say that everyone is jealous of these controlling factors, but rather they are unable to suppress the power exerted by them, whether they like it or not.

That's what I think anyway.

Tempest01

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
America is THE most powerful country in the world in the three factors that perhaps matter most: economy, military might and media saturation. These are not 'faults' of America, but the rest of the world can view this power as having an uncontrollable affect on their way of life and beliefs. This is not to say that everyone is jealous of these controlling factors, but rather they are unable to suppress the power exerted by them, whether they like it or not.

That's what I think anyway.

Yes, I understand & agree with this. But I want to emphasize my point (and perhaps freeyourmind's?) on this part:
It's the fact that the Muslim groups perceive it as one on the evidence of the rhetoric. Therefore they will not stop until the perceived threat on THEIR beliefs ceases.

Of course, even if the Xian rhetoric did cease, who can say if the terrorist threat would...?

What I was specifically saying was that the individuals funding & inciting the holy wars aren't at all concerned about religious agendas -- they have political & financial agendas, and simply use the US as a scapegoat to stir the emotions of people who are in an easy position to be manipulated into believing they have good reason to hate & go to war & die for their cause. These leaders use & abuse religion to maintain power & control. The US doesn't own that policy either: to be sure, the news today was rife with stories about middle eastern religious leaders & their power struggles....

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by Tempest01
What I was specifically saying was that the individuals funding & inciting the holy wars aren't at all concerned about religious agendas -- they have political & financial agendas, and simply use the US as a scapegoat to stir the emotions of people who are in an easy position to be manipulated into believing they have good reason to hate & go to war & die for their cause. These leaders use & abuse religion to maintain power & control. The US doesn't own that policy either: to be sure, the news today was rife with stories about middle eastern religious leaders & their power struggles....

I know what your saying and I agree with it...to an extent. In a way it relates to what I previously said about America's total control of certain prevailing factors. I'm sure Bush spouts the Xian rhetoric in part due to the influence it exerts on the American population, of whom a large percentage go to church regularly. But whereas those other factors can cause a variety of responses, 'religion' can solidify a great mass of people to fight a perceived theat if THAT threat is from a different religious background to their own.

freeyourmind

Originally posted by Tempest01
I agree with most of what you've written, and the very reasonable way in which you've written it. I have to bring up this point though, because lately we have a few prime examples of state & religion in major conflict..... ie homosexuality & roe v. wade. Both are in serious straits right now, the one on the verge of being named a constitutionally-supported justification for discrimination, and the other of being overturned (god have mercy on us all....). Both are the result of intense christian pressure....and not just from radical christian groups.
I am not familiar with these cases, could you perhaps elaborate some more on them? :)
I don't think there's any room at all for a marriage of church & state, because the Church always believes that it has the ONLY correct answer for the right way of living. And the church has very distinctive prejudices (about homosexuality, abortion, sex, etc). On the other hand, HU, recognize that by saying you want to educate them all to your way of thinking ('we should attempt to inform people about the 'bad side' of Religion, and how the believe in God is futile') you sound exactly like the christians. I do not mean this as a criticism, just an observation. If you are allowed to believe what you want to believe, why shouldn't others have the same right? How can one better oneself by despising others for having conflicting beliefs? I am an atheist too, but not only can I not prove there IS a god, I also cannot prove there ISN'T. Frankly, I don't feel the need to do either.
Okay, I agree with you that the Church (or synagogue, mosque, etc.) laws should not become state laws, but what I was saying to HU was that I believe there is no reason why the citizens of a country should not be able to practise the church laws.
In this example, the church would have broken that golden rule I mentioned before: A state should not interfere with religion only insofar as religion doesn't interfere with non-practitioners' lives.

I don't think there was anything wrong with HU's suggestions. Unlike the church, he did not propose to force his beliefs upon others, but rather to prove to people that theirs are wrong, thereby leaving the choice to them what they want to believe in. Discussion in the ideal procedure for change. If only more people did it properly...
Anyway, this is not to say that I believe a leader must have an absence of religion -- how can a leader protect anyone's freedoms if he himself cannot experience them? It is not off, however, to fear the amount of religious influence in Bush's decisions.
Agreed completely - if Bush's decisions are in fact influenced by religion then the war is a religious one and the Muslims - any Muslims - have got a complete ethical right to defend themselves against it and fight the Americans. However, I don't think this is the case. I think Bush only uses religion to convince people at home that god's with the "good guys" - that since the war in Iraq is a moral thing (at least according to their opinion. As I said, I don't know what I think about it), then god will be on their side.
If you or OBLH have got any quotes from Bush that bring any direct "proof" from Christianity for justification of the war then please bring them forwards.
About the other point, I disagree. A person does not have to experience a freedom in order to protect it. Sexual freedom for instance can be protected even by people who aren't gay or bi.
My husband believes that terrorism doesn't start from religious fervor, but from sick & twisted individuals who simply use the passion of religion to their favor -- it is the clever manipulation of people who are easily preyed upon because they are vulnerable for whatever reason, thru arguments they can readily be brainwashed into understanding & agreeing with.
In that case your husband agrees with me - well, depending what you mean by "sick and twisted". I don't know the exact numbers but I understand that in Israel there have been over 10,000 terrorist attacks since the beginning of the intifada in 2000. All of these terrorists can't have been bad people. Many of these were regular people (some fathers of big families) who got on fine with everything in their lives and hadn't had a violent history until then. I think it's really got a lot more to do with the terror groups themselves than with the people who carry out the attacks and/or their religion. I won't go into it now but I know that in the Palestinian territories kids are being brainwashed through school, TV, mosque preaching - everywhere the terrorist groups have infiltrated already.
In that light, a reasonable mind can not hate muslims for the actions of a few freaks, right? Ironic how easy it is for the rest of the world to hate Americans, however, and yet expect us to be non-critical of everyone.
I couldn't agree with you more. It seems that racial tolerance too is based on taboos. You hear things said about Americans that would never be said about the British, Germans, Arabs, Asians etc. It has become fashionable to hate Americans and so people do it freely. It's disgraceful.
In my opinion no generalisation should ever be taken seriously - even not ones about Republicans ;) :p

freeyourmind

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Bush - Xian references in his speeches, backing the divinity of the war.
Target - Muslim groups. (They are NOT Xians)
Result - holy war
What you're saying here is that a simple American govt VS radical murderous terrorists turns into Christianity VS Islam due to religious references in the president's speeches and the religion of the terrorists.

I have trouble with that. Firstly, as I said, I'm not convinced that the references in the speeches are necessarily Christian (if only references to God are being made then the backing is also equally Jewish and Islamic), and secondly, because I think the religion of the terrorists is entirely coincidental and inconsequential to their (meaning their leaders', not the attackers themselves') agenda - which I believe is political (In this case I don't see how financial. Could you elaborate on that Tempest?)

Whether this is intended by Bush or not is not really the point. It's the fact that the Muslim groups perceive it as one on the evidence of the rhetoric. Therefore they will not stop until the perceived threat on THEIR beliefs ceases.

Of course, even if the Xian rhetoric did cease, who can say if the terrorist threat would...?
Okay, I agree with you that Bush's assheaded speeches are not helping the situation, but my point in all of this argument is that I think they are not as important as you say they are. If the speeches stopped tomorrow then the attacks would still continue. Whoever's in charge of any named Iraqi terrorist group is not concerned about Bush's references in his speeches - he has other things on his mind...

freeyourmind

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
I know what your saying and I agree with it...to an extent. In a way it relates to what I previously said about America's total control of certain prevailing factors. I'm sure Bush spouts the Xian rhetoric in part due to the influence it exerts on the American population, of whom a large percentage go to church regularly. But whereas those other factors can cause a variety of responses, 'religion' can solidify a great mass of people to fight a perceived theat if THAT threat is from a different religious background to their own.
Of course he uses the rhetoric to influence the religious to trust him! What other reason could he possible have?
But there's a great difference between calling Christian fundamentalism the real terror and accusing a president of abusing his people's religious beliefs. It's still a bad thing, but it doesn't deserve as dramatic a title as you gave it. ;)

Tempest01

posted by OBLH
But whereas those other factors can cause a variety of responses, 'religion' can solidify a great mass of people to fight a perceived theat if THAT threat is from a different religious background to their own.Oh my gosh, this is so very true! And so very frightening.....

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I am not familiar with these cases, could you perhaps elaborate some more on them? :) Oops, sorry! Um, okay..... freedom from discrimination based upon things like color, race, gender, and sexual preference is supposed to be a given here in the US. However, homosexuals have never been allowed to get married -- they can go thru the various legal processes to guarantee the same legal rights that a married couple has, but it takes work & is not cheap. By legal rights I mean things like staying with a loved one in the hospital during times that are normally conferred to "family members only" or automatically gaining custody of any children (or property) upon the death of one of the parents or even filing taxes -- there are situations all over the place where married couples have automatic rights as a couple. Homosexuals have always been prevented from getting married, however, because the christians (and other religions? but christianity has the most influence here) believe that a marriage is defined as being between a man & a woman. The issue has become hot & heavy lately because some state supreme courts have declared it is unconstitutional and have been allowing gay marriages. As a result, most states AND the fed govt are working avidly to change the constitutions (both state and federal) to say specifically that a marriage is between a man & a woman. This horrifies me to no end, because it places a distinct and religious-based discrimination into our one piece of legislation that is supposed to defend us at all costs from discrimination, including religious discrimination.

Roe v. wade is a legal suit brought by a woman who was pregnant from being raped & was prevented by current laws from getting an abortion. The case went all the way to the federal supreme court, and their decision guaranteed the freedom of choice about abortion. Not a day goes by that this doesn't get fought tooth & nail though, almost exclusively by religious factors, predominately christian. They have even gone so far as to kill abortion doctors -- under the pretense of "saving life." Whatever. Anyway, lately there has been a lot of far more serious talk about overturning roe v. wade, particularly because the US supreme court has lost or is losing some judges that have historically voted in a more dem manner, and fed supreme court judges are appointed by the president..... and he is, of course, strongly influenced by his religious beliefs.

I apologize if you didn't need such lengthy explanations....

Okay, I agree with you that the Church (or synagogue, mosque, etc.) laws should not become state laws, but what I was saying to HU was that I believe there is no reason why the citizens of a country should not be able to practise the church laws.
In this example, the church would have broken that golden rule I mentioned before: A state should not interfere with religion only insofar as religion doesn't interfere with non-practitioners' lives. And -- in the US anyway -- people ARE able to practice their church laws, as long as they don't interfere with or attempt to supersede state laws. For example, shooting abortion doctors is a very illegal way of ensuring the christian "law" of pro-life. Preaching about things like pro-life beliefs, and even encouraging members about how to vote those issues are their right, however.

I don't think there was anything wrong with HU's suggestions. Unlike the church, he did not propose to force his beliefs upon others, but rather to prove to people that theirs are wrong, thereby leaving the choice to them what they want to believe in. Discussion in the ideal procedure for change. If only more people did it properly...I couldn't disagree with you more -- I think it's wrong to tell people their spiritual beliefs are wrong, except where those beliefs cross the boundary of separation of church & state. Killing an abortion doc, for example, is wrong. Believing that abortion is sinful is not. They have a right to that belief. Not that I'm opposed to discussion of the various points, of course, as long as it's done in a respectful manner. But I think that this automatic respect for others is the foundation of good -- and that being respected at a basic level is an inate right.

If you or OBLH have got any quotes from Bush that bring any direct "proof" from Christianity for justification of the war then please bring them forwards.No, I'm quite sure the war is about oil. Most of the polls I've read during this whole thing suggest that around half the population here agrees with me.

A person does not have to experience a freedom in order to protect it. Sexual freedom for instance can be protected even by people who aren't gay or bi.Ah, but the point here is the freedom to choose! A person does not have to experience it, only be free to choose it. The president too has to have freedom of choice. He's just in a trickier spot, since he can't (well, shouldn't) let his religious biases supersede his state responsibilities.

I think it's really got a lot more to do with the terror groups themselves than with the people who carry out the attacks and/or their religion. I won't go into it now but I know that in the Palestinian territories kids are being brainwashed through school, TV, mosque preaching - everywhere the terrorist groups have infiltrated already.
Yes, this is what I mean.... it isn't about the individuals carrying it out, it's about the ones who manipulate them into doing so. I can't hate the individuals who crashed planes into the world trade center (well, I try very hard not to) but the ones who have political agendas and used religion to convince people to do this heinous thing? Those are a different matter!

In my opinion no generalisation should ever be taken seriously - even not ones about Republicans ;) :ppoint :D

I try to not let it influence my actions, but that's because I recognize its presence.....

HomoUniversalis

Like FYM said, I have no intention of forcing my opinion onto others, no matter how stupid I might think their views are. I will not force atheism on my (future) children either. I will introduce them to religions and will leave them to decide whether they believe in a celestial being. My parents did the same, and I like myself :D.

If 90% of the population believes that 10% of the population should be turned for slavery, that's fine. However, the constitution exists to make sure that this can not happen. Prime rights have been made to ensure certain things. In Geneva certain decisions have been made as to what a country is allowed to do. Ergo, it is okay for those 90% to want to enslave those 10%, but it is impossible, due to the Constitution, due to the Geneva convention.

Minorities should not be protected from majorities. They should be judged by the same laws as majorities, as they should be protected by the same laws as majorities. This assures that both parties have equal rights, and are equally happy.

Basicly, we agree that Americans (inhabitants of the USA) are not free. Perhaps they are more free than people in a dictatorship, but it does not mean we are free.

I do not agree with Ou Be Low Hoo in the way that the spread of Christianity is a cause for the Iraq war, but more a cause for the morals that led to the war. For example, Christianity has tought us that we should think of ourselves as equal, that we should treat others as we like to be treated. Certain rules, that some believe to be 'Golden Rules'. These rules come directly from the bible, and are results of the long duration of power that the Roman Church had in the dark ages.
Basicly, our morals are Christian morals. Some of our morals are shared with the jews, but not all, which sometimes leads to conflicts. Overall, I think it is reasonable to state that jews are not amongst the most loved people in the world.
Back to my point. One of these morals include, the jews share it, that we should be nice to those who are close to us (Ten commandments).
It doesn't state be nice to everyone, but rather to people around you. This is scary, since it allows for a government that follows these morals (whether you are an atheist or not, the government has adapted to the morals of the majority, which have Christian morals. Put aside whether they are Christian or not.) and decides that they have the right to kill or enslave others.

This is a major flaw in the Bible, and it is visible throughout history. Colonisation is one of the reasons, if not the biggest why terrorism exists as it exists to day. We abused them, they have nothing, they are pissed, they attack. An eye for an eye.

Back to the point :). So you have this government who has no problem going to other places and 'take over' because these people are inferior in religion, and in governmental system. First of all, I do not share this idea. I do not believe anyone is capable of deciding which system is superior, but the people on the bottom (in a company, you look at the failures, not the successes!).
Second, these morals have allowed for governments to go somewhere and spread the word of God (Read the Crusades).

Today, however, they have taken another shape. As people believe religion should not be involved in ruling a country, religion is kept out of the picture, but not out of the morals that influence the government! Therefore, the morals that drove people into the crusades, still exist today! We actually believe that we are liberating the people of Iraq by killing them? Is there something wrong with me for not understanding that sentence?

Or do we believe that our system, democracy is superior to a dictatorship? If so, by what do we measure it? Freedom? As stated before, it is impossible to describe it, and if you try, you have to conclude that both systems do not have 'freedom'!

HU

freeyourmind

Originally posted by Tempest01
Oh my gosh, this is so very true! And so very frightening.....

Oops, sorry! Um, okay..... freedom from discrimination based upon things like color, race, gender, and sexual preference is supposed to be a given here in the US. However, homosexuals have never been allowed to get married -- they can go thru the various legal processes to guarantee the same legal rights that a married couple has, but it takes work & is not cheap. By legal rights I mean things like staying with a loved one in the hospital during times that are normally conferred to "family members only" or automatically gaining custody of any children (or property) upon the death of one of the parents or even filing taxes -- there are situations all over the place where married couples have automatic rights as a couple. Homosexuals have always been prevented from getting married, however, because the christians (and other religions? but christianity has the most influence here) believe that a marriage is defined as being between a man & a woman. The issue has become hot & heavy lately because some state supreme courts have declared it is unconstitutional and have been allowing gay marriages. As a result, most states AND the fed govt are working avidly to change the constitutions (both state and federal) to say specifically that a marriage is between a man & a woman. This horrifies me to no end, because it places a distinct and religious-based discrimination into our one piece of legislation that is supposed to defend us at all costs from discrimination, including religious discrimination.

Roe v. wade is a legal suit brought by a woman who was pregnant from being raped & was prevented by current laws from getting an abortion. The case went all the way to the federal supreme court, and their decision guaranteed the freedom of choice about abortion. Not a day goes by that this doesn't get fought tooth & nail though, almost exclusively by religious factors, predominately christian. They have even gone so far as to kill abortion doctors -- under the pretense of "saving life." Whatever. Anyway, lately there has been a lot of far more serious talk about overturning roe v. wade, particularly because the US supreme court has lost or is losing some judges that have historically voted in a more dem manner, and fed supreme court judges are appointed by the president..... and he is, of course, strongly influenced by his religious beliefs.

I apologize if you didn't need such lengthy explanations....
Nah, thanks, the explanations were fine. In the first case I would have to agree with you and say the church had stepped hear way over the line, but in the second case... I'm not so sure.
True, shooting abortion doctors is completely wrong, but I don't think the idea that there shouldn't be a right of abortion is necessarily non-democratic.
In abortion what you do is measure the quality of life of the woman against the life of a baby. It's not so obvious that the woman's quality of life is more important. I'm not saying I think the baby's life is more important either. This is another one of those cases where I'm not sure what to think. I guess each such scenario should be evaluated in turn. Anyway, there's not a straightforward answer...
I couldn't disagree with you more -- I think it's wrong to tell people their spiritual beliefs are wrong, except where those beliefs cross the boundary of separation of church & state. Killing an abortion doc, for example, is wrong. Believing that abortion is sinful is not. They have a right to that belief. Not that I'm opposed to discussion of the various points, of course, as long as it's done in a respectful manner. But I think that this automatic respect for others is the foundation of good -- and that being respected at a basic level is an inate right.
I think you misinterpret what I (meaning HU ;) ) meant. We were saying that yes, it's wrong to force your ideas upon others that disagree, but it's a good idea to suggest to them that their view of life is wrong i.e. invite discussion.
Assuming I believed abortion was wrong - what I'm saying is that the abortion doc shouldn't be killed or arrested or whatever, but that he should be spoken too and attempted to be convinced of the error of his ways.
No, I'm quite sure the war is about oil. Most of the polls I've read during this whole thing suggest that around half the population here agrees with me.
Okay, so it's either about oil or "liberating Iraq" or fighting terror or killing Arabs or whatever, but we're both agreed that Christianity has nothing to do with it. This is really something OBLH should answer...
Ah, but the point here is the freedom to choose! A person does not have to experience it, only be free to choose it. The president too has to have freedom of choice. He's just in a trickier spot, since he can't (well, shouldn't) let his religious biases supersede his state responsibilities.
Interesting. Now I see what you were getting at. It is a tricky situation. What if the president's duty to his state somehow contradicts his religious belief?
If there is potential for such a situation then I guess a religious person shouldn't be allowed into office... But then, could a scenario like this actually exist in real life? Any ideas for conflicting laws?

Tempest01

Originally posted by freeyourmind
[B but in the second case... I'm not so sure.
True, shooting abortion doctors is completely wrong, but I don't think the idea that there shouldn't be a right of abortion is necessarily non-democratic.
In abortion what you do is measure the quality of life of the woman against the life of a baby. It's not so obvious that the woman's quality of life is more important. I'm not saying I think the baby's life is more important either. This is another one of those cases where I'm not sure what to think. I guess each such scenario should be evaluated in turn. Anyway, there's not a straightforward answer...

Yes, that's true enough. It's not an easy issue, no matter how you look at it. And when a woman is raped she's been thru an extremely violent ordeal (been there, but was already 6 mos pregnant) -- why should her life have to be compromised all over again.... and again, and again, and again? Even if you adopt the child out, you've had to carry it in your body -- you've had 9 months of being reminded every day of what you've been thru, and you produce a child that may someday end up learning of the act behind its creation. But the reason that I included it here is because in my personal experience & from what I have read over the years, the christian groups are the most radical about this issue and the ones fighting the hardest to overturn it.

Assuming I believed abortion was wrong - what I'm saying is that the abortion doc shouldn't be killed or arrested or whatever, but that he should be spoken too and attempted to be convinced of the error of his ways.

It is very possible that I misunderstood you. lol And it's okay to do this (what you've stated here) to an extent, but where is the boundary? And what if the abortion doc isn't interested in your discussion? Does he have the right to not be interested, to not listen? See, the thing is that I feel I shouldn't have to be subject (nor subjected to) every counter opinion in the world. I wouldn't voluntarily enter a conversation with a bible-thumper, for example, so I don't feel he has the right to chase me down & tell me why I'm going to hell & would be so much better off if I just believed like he did -- and yet this has actually happened. When you expect someone to be willing to listen to the way you think they should be living their life you are, in fact, forcing your belief system on them. Now, this is not to say that differences can't be discussed amongst willing participants..... but, truly, we have to recognize that each person has a right to their beliefs (within bounds of course -- believing that killing abortion docs is the right answer is obviously wrong) and a right to not be accosted by yours. (I say, as I force my belief system down your throat....)

On the other hand, starting a discussion on a forum about the pros & cons of a given religion is perfectly reasonable -- as long as open minds (and not flamers) are the rule of the day...... ;)

What if the president's duty to his state somehow contradicts his religious belief?
If there is potential for such a situation then I guess a religious person shouldn't be allowed into office... But then, could a scenario like this actually exist in real life? Any ideas for conflicting laws? [/B]

Well, this is actually what is happening with the gay marriage issue. Bush is the one who proposed a (federal) constitutional amendment that would declare a "marriage" as being between a man & a woman. So he is choosing his religious beliefs (that gay marriage is wrong) over his state responsibilities (as a representative of ALL the people). I'm sure he would or has argued that his motivations aren't stemming from his religious beliefs, but given that he is a self-professed devout christian, and given the church's very open stance opposing homosexuality in general, one would have to possess a very active imagination to believe that.

posted by HU
I will not force atheism on my (future) children either. I will introduce them to religions and will leave them to decide whether they believe in a celestial being.

Yes, I'm doing the same with mine. In fact, my son wanted to believe in God & felt uncomfortable about it because neither his dad nor I do..... and we spent a great deal of effort reassuring him that he was able to believe whatever he wanted, and wasn't wrong for it. I don't think it's stupid or wrong to believe in God. I just don't happen to believe in him myself.

HU, some morals are fundamentally right, and don't necessarily stem from christianity. Sure, it says "do unto others..." in the bible, but the idea of treating others in a way that promotes harmony wasn't created by the christians. In fact, given that the christians create a great deal of disharmony.... but I digress, sorry. Anyway, even tribal cultures possess group harmony, and you can be certain THEY aren't christian. Although not for lack of trying on the part of the christians.... ouch, I digress again! Hmmmm..... I'm having trouble staying on track here, so I hope this has been sufficient to make my point. :D

Ou Be Low hoo

Originally posted by freeyourmind
What you're saying here is that a simple American govt VS radical murderous terrorists turns into Christianity VS Islam due to religious references in the president's speeches and the religion of the terrorists.

The reason the explanation you are referring to is 'simple' is because you repeatedly failed to understand the broader ones!

You are also, along with HU, completely missing the point of my argument. I DO NOT think the war on terrorism is an attempt to convert the Muslim world to the joys of Jesus, rather THAT is the only way for MUSLIMS TO VIEW IT - in light of Bush's rhetoric and the fact that, bar North Korea, ALL the terrorist organisations that are being targeted are ISLAMIC ONES!!!!!! Is that clear enough for you!?!?!?!?!?!

The title 'The Real Terror: The Rise of Xian Fundamentalism' is my attempt at highlighting the Muslim world's view on the current 'War on Terror' campaign. On the American side, the war is viewed as an attempt to put an end to terrorist actions...On the Muslim side it is viewed as an attempt to put an end to their religious actions...THIS MUCH IS EVIDENT BY THE FACT THEY ALWAYS REFER TO IT AS 'JIHAD'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! While the Bush administration refers to it as a 'CRUSADE'. BOTH THESE TERMS HAVE OVERT RELIGIOUS CONNOTATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WITH THE TWO RELIGIONS IN QUESTION BEING ISLAM AND XIANITY!

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

HomoUniversalis

You are correct, I did not understand you point with this thread, but I guess, if that was your intention, I guess I have to say that you are right, however whether the fact or these beliefs are justified are the real question. Also, I do not believe terrorism comes only from their believe that the Christians are trying to kill them, but rather that Christians have already, and that they have come back to finish the job.

Winston Churchill did a lot of bad things in the 1920's in Iraq and it's surroundings, amongst using poison gas to frighten the locals. Fear might be an effective tool on short-term, but it is bad in long-therm and we are currently undergoing the effects. I do not condone terrorism, but the attacks of Churchill and his colaborators, and those that did not intervene are equally guilty to the events on 9-11, and the attack on Spain not to long ago. The attacks against Iraq by the US will only increase this feeling, especially because it was not condoned by the UN.

The worst thing about this whole matter is, that if those terrorists would claim to be soldiers of Afghanistan, attacking a threat to the world, they would have more evidence than the US had when they attacked Iraq. After all, we know that the US has WMD's, and they have not acknowledged any UN treaty. Personally, I wish the US was more catholic.

A quote from the Bible, used by American (read: US) citizens:

7:3 why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Well, maybe not used, rather read. Earlier I have declared that the US is not free, so if the US claims to be such a beacon, what does it shine? Hypocracy, perhaps?

HU

Tempest01

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
Personally, I wish the US was more catholic.

God forbid! Are you kidding? The catholics are even more anal retentive than the others.... they are implacable on their stances toward homosexuals (whom they consider "abominations" and provide a multitude of religious quotes as "proof"), birth control (despite the out of control world population), unwed mothers, and the authority of the church in all things. Ug, I'm still shuddering!

And HU, the US is allowed to have WMD according to UN laws, because we meet UN regulations. In fact, Saddam would not have had nearly the issues he did if he hadn't point-blank ignored UN rules -- the strongest argument the US had for going into Iraq was the fact that the UN had set down rules & deadlines for Iraq, and he had repeatedly ignored or denied them. Specifically:

Text from the UN Resolution on Iraq:
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

HomoUniversalis

Well, if catholics would keep themselves to their bible, I think the world would be a better place, but this is beside the point for now.

What I find much more disturbing is that the US is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. You see, I can not think of a single situation in which weapons of mass destruction could be used to defend someone.

Two reasons, I can personally think of, but have to dismiss immediately are the following:

1) Military standoff. One of the Koreas (I love SNL) has a nuke, and is building up their arsenal, the cold war all over again. More and more nukes are produced, and energy and money that should go to the economy is lost. I would rather have that all WMD's are banned, and that the countries suspected of WMD's are scanned by either satelites or inspectors for having them. I know the difference between weapons-grade Plutonium/Uranium and that used in Nuclear Power facilities, and it takes a lot of space to enhance the plutonium/Uranium to the 90% marge.

2) Someone actually fires one. There are two options. The US president (currenlty Bush) decides Peace is the way to live and devotes his life to Gandhi, at the expense of people from the US, or he orders 50 tactical nuclear missiles to be launched at the country who fired them, positioned in such a matter that the whole country will be uninhabitable for 10 years, at the expense of US civilians and civilians from the country that launched the first one.

'Vengeance is mine', said the lord.

I see no reason why the US, or any other country would need WMD's, and I find it scary to see that the US has them. Personally, I do not trust them in the hands of Bush, or any other person besides myself.

Yep, that's right, 'HomoUniversalis for President!' ;)

HU

Tempest01

Well, I can agree with your horror at the thought of wmd in general. This issue gets debated hot & heavy here too. Do you remember a few weeks ago when somebody from the UN mentioned in a speech that he thought the US should have to give up their wmd too? It was an anecdotal statement (read: personal opinion) but man did it spark a flurry of heated discussion.

Why the weapons? For the counter attack, of course. For the threat of force. Perhaps because the prospect of annihilation (which we are well within the capability of providing) is enough to cause a crazed terrorist a moment of reflection before making that stupid move? Who knows.

Someone said (during that very heated discussion) that the US has a right to keep their weapons because "it's the police who should carry the gun." But does that mean that the US gets to police the world? Obviously not..... still, we are the one country least likely to use them in an offensive attack, which is precisely how the police operate too, if you think about it.

I would be happier without weapons in general, and definitely without wmd in specific. I'm not sure how much that is simple idealism, however.

HomoUniversalis

Well, the largest threat facing the US right now is international terrorism, you mentioned the terrorist yourself. Do you honestly believe one can kill a terrorist by attacking a country? You will only create more hatred towards the USA, and more copkillers ;).

You know how I think about the police position, and I am for a more open UN to the world public, and the acceptance to force UN treaties on countries, even the US :angry:.

Let's just say I am Osama Bin Laden. Ex-'US-supported-freedom-fighter', world-famous terrorist. I use my contacts with a splinter faction of the Libyan government to obtain weapons-grade plutonium from an old russian bunker, and I'm in business, ready for the kill. I send in a palestinian with a briefcase bomb, 911 days after the attack on spain, and another mission completed succesfully.
Whom do we punish? On who do we aim the missiles when hundreds of thousands have died? Will it be Russia for not taking care of the missiles, Libya for not killing the people who oppose them?
Or will we punish Osama Bin Laden by bombing a 'terrorist country'?

How will you fight international terrorism on the long term? Bush said he would take care of terrorism before starting his war against terrorism. What has he done? He has killed many, but has he even got Osama Bin Laden? NO!
The original reason for this whole war on terrorism remains a fugtive.

Further, we seem to believe violence will help. Are we really so naive that we think violence can stop violence?

Imagine, Libya holds Osama Bin Laden. US bombs Libya with their WMD's (What else do they need them for? Note that this is after the WMD attack). People start dying, men see their children and wives ripped open before them, and try to find a doctor to cure a dead family.

People caught in a war will not seek peace afterwards, but rather vengeance. If we continue this hate campaign against the East the problem will only grow.
I am afraid that if this problem grows, the US will use it's weapons, and that scares me, since I don't like power in the hands of anyone but me :).

Mr U