I'm on the Pope's side on this one

[Nicodema]

I just want to know who's talking about "the other side."

I'm sorry, I don't follow your question. Which side would that be, that you call "other"?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

This administration most certainly DID claim ties between 9/11 and Iraq. Repeatedly.

I would have to be shown that becuase Dick Chenny went on NBC's Meet The Press right after 9/11 and said there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 attacks. A year later when he went back on Meet The Press he said he didn't know if there was a connection.

Evidence has now come to light that George Tennent knew there was no connection and withheld the information from the President.

[Dr. Shane]

Americans that join the military to defend their nation do not do so because they are Christians. America's defense of her homeland is not a Christian crusade. This isn't a war of Christians killing Muslims. Muslims have declared a religious war against the west. The west's reaction is not a religious call against Muslims.

[Amelia]

Im sorry. I can't equate our government engaging in a "war on terrorism" as Christians attacking Muslims.

[Bravus]

Fair enough, but you then can't have it both ways. "When we do it, it's a country attacking, when they do it it's a religion." Not viable. That's (to state it once again) my point throughout: blame terrorists, not Muslims. It's unfair stereotyping of a whole religion based on the actions of a few.

Casting it as a religious war casts it as a war between a billion Christians on one side and a billion Muslims on the other, with a billion Hindus and a billion Confucians (with a thin veneer of Maoism) looking on. That kind of all out war on a culture would kill millions on *both* sides, and have no winners.

Rather, cast it as the international action against those who use violence against civilians as a tactic (there, Ed, I exempt those who use violence against civilians accidentally) and leave religion out of the picture entirely. Then you get the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and any other groups using terrorism as a tactic.

[Amelia]

I think the problem lies in that in the USA, religion is separate from government. In many other countries the religion is the government is the country is the people. No separation.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

"When we do it, it's a country attacking, when they do it it's a religion."

That is exactly how many see it, including me. Example after example can be given that show Muslim clerics calling for jihad. In many Muslim states there is no seperation of church and state. It is quite simular to the papal church in the Dark Ages when the papacy told the kings to go to war.

And look around the world. Now there is a coup in Thailand and we here news it is a Muslim general that has taken over. If that is true, is it surprising? Fundamental Muslims make up a strong minority of the Muslim community. 30% may not be a majority but it is substancial. These fundamentalists fight with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Budhists and Communists. They can't co-exist with anyone. And the fact that most of the 70% of moderate Muslims are afraid of the 30% does not help either.

[Nicodema]

But I think Bravus' point is that it is morally inconsistent to see it that way. Assign blame to the attackers not to some generic group they may or may not represent. Just because there are some fanatics out there that starve and beat their children or refuse them medical care because they think the Bible tells them to does not mean they represent all Christians. Likewise just because there are fanatics out there who take the whole jihad notion literally instead of as spiritual polemic (think spiritual warfare type stuff) does not mean they represent all Muslims. The attackers on 9/11 were Al-Qaeda terrorists who happened to be Muslims. They could just as easily have been terrorists who happened to be some other religion. Zoroastrians, I dunno. Whatever.

[Gerr]

Their violent reaction to what the Pope said/read, just proves the point.

Gerry

[Nicodema]

And poking sticks at a rabid dog is smart .... how?

[Dr. Shane]

We do tie certain things to certain religions. The latino star Selina died not because she was shot but because she was Jehova Witness and would not take a blood transfussion. Christian Scientists have become known for not taking their children to medical care and often times child protection services has had to get involved.

Al-Queda is only one of several fundamentalist Islamic groups. Studies have shown that about 30% of professed Muslims are sympathetic to such groups. There is a teaching in the Koran that fundamentalist Muslims latch onto that does not allow them to co-exist with other religions. It isn't that they just happen to be fundamentalist Muslim. We need to recognize the fundamentlist faction of Islam as a world-wide threat. Moreover, fundamentalist Islam believes in the union of church and state. That itself should scare each of us.

[Nicodema]

Fundamentalist Islam is not the great end time thread outlined in the book of Revelation. Fundamentalist Christianity is.

[Dr. Shane]

That is correct but... that is also a topic for another thread since we are not talking about Revelation here.

[Bravus]

But we are talking about being on the Pope's side.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, I'm not. Like I said, he sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. He has a point but needs to look in the mirror.

[aldona]

Fundamentalist Islam is not the great end time thread outlined in the book of Revelation. Fundamentalist Christianity is.

[Dr. Shane]

That is just silly. If we want to compare the millions the papacy killed during the Dark Ages with those the Muslims have killed we can talk numbers. If anti-American, Bush-haters want to drag the United States into the conversation they need not even have a seat at the table.

[Nicodema]

anti-American, Bush-haters

ad hominem there, Shane.

To disagree with what America is doing is not to oppose America.

To criticize the administration is not "Bush-hate".

Down boy!

[Bravus]

Sorry Shane, but saying "You have to frame the argument in my terms, else you don't have the right to argue" doesn't get us far.

This whole 'who killed more?' argument is distasteful, but necessary, I think. The 'Islam is a religion of mindless savages' thing is just plain offensive, and not borne out by the facts, and I'll keep on opposing it wherever it raises its ugly head. Not even by comparing with Christianity: anyone who cares to look at reality will find hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims who contribute to the world and raise their children and are good people.

(Not to Shane, but to D.Bishop and Ed in particular.) Stereotyping a whole faith based on the actions of a few is just plain morally wrong. All the arguments presented so far have not even addressed that fact, just come back with other issues. And don't come back and tell me terrorism and murder are morally wrong. Of course they are, and I know it, but it's *irrelevant* to this point.

[Kountzer]

I don't consider all muslims to be evil. I have met a lot of nice muslims. I see them every day in my line of work. There are some very nice muslims in this world.

Still, I find Islam to be a very confusing and alarming religion.

I suppose all this is building up to the troublous times mentioned in Dan. 12:1

D_Bishop

[there buster]

Quote:

Exact numbers are hard to find, but over the past few years, mostly thanks to George Bush's self-proclaimed holy war in the Middle East, I put Christians ahead by at least tens of thousands, and counting.

1. There is no "holy war" self-proclaimed or otherwise agianst Muslims. Neither the president nor any one in government has declared this a war of Christians against Muslims, or even freedom vs. Muslims.

2. Islam was a religion of holy war--not spiritual struggle--from the outset. Muhammed died about A.D. 638. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed's kingdom was very much of this world, and he began fighting with his neighbors almost immediately. Within a century, Muslims had conquered, in the name of Allah, all of Asia minor, North Africa, the all of the Iberian Peninsula, and well into France. For it was at Tours, in 732, that Charles Martel defeated the Muslims for the first time. The Muslims occupied Spain, it should be noted, for seven centuries, finally driven out after the batlle of the Alhambra, in 1492.

3. During the 20th century, avowed atheists killed tens of millions more than all the holy wars of all the years. The brutal killing machines of the Soviets, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, and the Chinese communists--atheists all--accounted for in excess of 100 million deaths. Estimates go beyond 200 million, but the communists rigidly control information, so it's difficult to be precise: 100 million is a minimum.

Solomon says that an atheist is a fool. The atheist's own words demonstrate ignorance of the facts.

What I find difficult to understand is why any Christian would quote him with approval.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

What I find difficult to understand is why any Christian would quote him with approval.

Is this an insinuation that Aldona's faith should now be called into question?

[there buster]

I don't insinuate, I state.

If I thought she wasn't a sincere Christian, I wouldn't find it puzzling.

Which is precisely what the statement said. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

[Bravus]

So basically it's not just a stereotype: Ed's actual, thought-out and supported position is that Islam is a 7th century religion of war locked in a 7th century culture.

You're entitled to that opinion, but I'm entitled to the opinion that it's a bigoted opinion to hold, and an ill-informed one.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

To disagree with what America is doing is not to oppose America.

To criticize the administration is not "Bush-hate".

First one has to recall the issue. The issue is the pope's comment about Islam. It has nothing to do with President Bush or the United States. Remember, the pope opposed the war in Iraq.

So when someone takes the pope's comments (which have nothing to do with the US or President Bush) as an opportunity to bash America and/or our President, they are acting outside the realm of reason and should not be permitted to be part of the discussion.

So if we were actually discussing America or President Bush, a person, such as myself, is free to disagree with the nation's policy without being anti-American. But when they inject anti-American comments when America isn't even the topic of discussion that is kind of a red flag.