Comparing Islam to Christianity

[lazs2]

silat... are you saying that you see no difference in someone being intolerant of your behavior or beliefs and someone suicide bombing you and yours because of your beliefs?

What does hitler killing jews have to do with suicide bombers and christians... you are all over the map here..  as someone pointed out... you are incensed because we are interfering in the torture and murder of iraqis yet... in the same breath..  appaled that we didn't rise up as christians or whatever to... do... do something about hitler earlier because he may have been slaughtering jews?

lazs

[Westy]

"being an anti-finatic you then become a "Finatic" against finatic"

 If I am an anti-Nazi that makes me a Nazi against Nazi's?

 lol.  Gotta love that logic.




"you can slam the US for intervening in Iraq's internal atrocities (mass murder with chemical weapons, you know)"

 I bet he's not slamming the intervention. Perhaps it's the 20 years it took to intervene?

[Gunthr]

Silat is obviously trying to diminish and minimize the significance of Ilsamic terrorism, just like the other political "progressives", by attempting to compare it to religious intolerance in general, or to other lesser phenomena.  

Many "political progressives" say that "Bush knew" about 911, and  even questioned the existance of Islamic terrorists, implying it was our own government who perpetrated 911.  

Political "progressives" originally referred to our efforts against terrorism as "the phoney war on terror."   Or they say, as Silat has said, "Bush lied" without providing evidence to proove it, insinuating that the failure to find WMD is proof that Bush lied.


If I'm wrong about you Silat, I apologise.

[bustr]

Originally posted by Westy
"being an anti-finatic you then become a "Finatic" against finatic"

 If I am an anti-Nazi that makes me a Nazi against Nazi's?

 lol.  Gotta love that logic.

 

In the middle of the high moral ground that justifies your actions against a perceived or real evil, one has to be concerned with crossing the line of becoming the evil. The western culture that fought WW2 had a more christian moral foundation than todays. But that did not mean some individuals on the march to Berlin from the Alies did not act as Natzi's to their Natzi foes in the heat of the moment.

The logic is aimed at our conditional weakness to justify our actions against a percieved evil or threat while ignoring our own conduct or logic process.

I suppose if ever one of the followers of the current Jihad sets off a portable nuke in New York or London, the unimaginable toll on life and distruction of property will cause the west to tempraroly as a body slip it's mental critical factor and act like Natzi's to a portion of the planets population in response. So then do we become anti-finatic finatics to save our civilization?

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by bustr
In the middle of the high moral ground that justifies your actions against a perceived or real evil, one has to be concerned with crossing the line of becoming the evil. The western culture that fought WW2 had a more christian moral foundation than todays. But that did not mean some individuals on the march to Berlin from the Alies did not act as Natzi's to their Natzi foes in the heat of the moment.

The logic is aimed at our conditional weakness to justify our actions against a percieved evil or threat while ignoring our own conduct or logic process.

I suppose if ever one of the followers of the current Jihad sets off a portable nuke in New York or London, the unimaginable toll on life and distruction of property will cause the west to tempraroly as a body slip it's mental critical factor and act like Natzi's to a portion of the planets population in response. So then do we become anti-finatic finatics to save our civilization?

And herin lies the cusp. Will we round up Islamics and pack 'em in concentration camps? Start triggering nukes in Ridyah, Tehran and Damascus?

If we've got the wrong (or depending on your religious tolerance) right guy in Washington.. you bet we will.

Frankly, it's a lose - lose deal. Now ask me why I get itchy when anybody preaches religious intolerance.. anybody. any religion.

Then ask yourselves, should Bustr's scenario play out.. what good has religion done for the world, and would we have all just been a heckuva lot better off without ANY of it.

[straffo]

Originally posted by hacksaw1
Is it just "religions" that are bad?

Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. Communist leaders saw religion as an impediment to the worker's "revolution" and to the promised utopia of world Communism.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/bates051305.htm

"The authoritative "Black Book of Communism – Crimes, Terror and Repression" provides the following Communist death toll estimates:

USSR – 20 million deaths
China – 65 million deaths
Vietnam – 1 million
North Korea – 2 million deaths
Cambodia – 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe – 1 million deaths
Latin America – 150,000 deaths
Africa – 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan – 1.5 million deaths

Man-made famines and slave labor camp confinements were common causes of death, with Lenin and Stalin killing millions that way. In Chairman Mao’s China, some people were reduced to cannibalism. Other methods used by Communist tyrants were hanging, poisoning, gassing, drowning and that old standby, firing squads."

Cement

Why don't you compare on a longuer period ?
I bet  you will also find 100 million deaths in 2000 year period.

Not that I defend comunism but it will be more fair IMO.

[Silat]

Originally posted by lazs2
silat... are you saying that you see no difference in someone being intolerant of your behavior or beliefs and someone suicide bombing you and yours because of your beliefs?

What does hitler killing jews have to do with suicide bombers and christians... you are all over the map here..  as someone pointed out... you are incensed because we are interfering in the torture and murder of iraqis yet... in the same breath..  appaled that we didn't rise up as christians or whatever to... do... do something about hitler earlier because he may have been slaughtering jews?

lazs

<>

The Jew thing was a response to someone who brought it up first. You can go back thru the messages and find it.
Nazis are and were fanatics.

What does this mean:

First off I dont even understand the sentence. Second if I did Id say "Huh?"

Oh I get it, you are trying to lay the Rightwing talking points on me:)
Of course I think Sadamm is a bad man and killing his people was wrong. Where did I ever say differently?

<>

Yes there is a difference in degree.One is killing now and one is leading towards hate and violence.
 I am pointing out that intolerance starts somewhere. It usually starts with someone preaching a point of view that incites others to violence. You know like preaching that gays are bad in your gods book.
 "your" not meaning you personally unless the shoe fits.

<>

May have been?? He was and the christians in this country were shamefully quiet. Im willing to let that discussion go for another day. OK?

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by straffo
Why don't you compare on a longuer period ?
I bet  you will also find 100 million deaths in 2000 year period.

Not so sure about that. Population density being what it was before the 17th century boom.

If you mean that another of the 19 different centuries could be counted for another 100 million deaths to barbarism (ruling out plagues etc.).

[Silat]

Originally posted by Gunthr
Silat is obviously trying to diminish and minimize the significance of Ilsamic terrorism, just like the other political "progressives", by attempting to compare it to religious intolerance in general, or to other lesser phenomena.  

Many "political progressives" say that "Bush knew" about 911, and  even questioned the existance of Islamic terrorists, implying it was our own government who perpetrated 911.  

Political "progressives" originally referred to our efforts against terrorism as "the phoney war on terror."   Or they say, as Silat has said, "Bush lied" without providing evidence to proove it, insinuating that the failure to find WMD is proof that Bush lied.


If I'm wrong about you Silat, I apologise.

I never tried to diminish the significance of Islamic terrorism. Please back that statement up. It sounds like typical rightwing talk. If I disagree with you then I am somehow not against the terrorists? It is not I who is unpatriotic.

Are you really saying that the fanatics are not intolerant of the wests religions? Please explain yourself.

Whether you believe Bush lied or not has nothing to do with this conversation. And trying to associate me with the TIN HAT BRIGADE is a very poor comeback.

And you are wrong about alot of things:)

I want the Islamic fanatics dead. I want all religious fanatics taken to task.Christian or otherwise. Is that clear enough for you?
Bush lied about alot of things.
Sadaam is a bad man.

Westy I am anti everything:)

[straffo]

Originally posted by Edbert
Not so sure about that. Population density being what it was before the 17th century boom.

If you mean that another of the 19 different centuries could be counted for another 100 million deaths to barbarism (ruling out plagues etc.).

well ... you're more than probably right.

[Silat]

Originally posted by bustr
In the middle of the high moral ground that justifies your actions against a perceived or real evil, one has to be concerned with crossing the line of becoming the evil. The western culture that fought WW2 had a more christian moral foundation than todays. But that did not mean some individuals on the march to Berlin from the Alies did not act as Natzi's to their Natzi foes in the heat of the moment.

The logic is aimed at our conditional weakness to justify our actions against a percieved evil or threat while ignoring our own conduct or logic process.

I suppose if ever one of the followers of the current Jihad sets off a portable nuke in New York or London, the unimaginable toll on life and distruction of property will cause the west to tempraroly as a body slip it's mental critical factor and act like Natzi's to a portion of the planets population in response. So then do we become anti-finatic finatics to save our civilization?

Yes we need to be concerned with crossing that EVILLL line. I dont see where we disagree?
Yes we will be strong and march on our enemies as we do now.  
But it shouldnt be in the name of someones GOD.
And it is NAZI's not NATZI's:)
And I would hope that we would never act as the NAZI's did. Killing the enemy is one thing but genocide is another.

[Westy]

"Westy I am anti everything"

 Ah yes. Well then I say welcome aboard, bother.      


"just been a heckuva lot better off without ANY of it."

AMEN!

[bustr]

Hang,

Human beings gravitate to what makes them feel good about thier life. Regardless of the dialogue some demigog is spouting to inflame the chosen, each chosen chose themselves to be there lapping it up. It's easier to let another speak the words you cannot put forth yourself. It becomes easier to take the seeming easy path of following soemone who talks like they know where they are going. (no disrespect Seagoon)

The demigog is easier for you to hate and hold up as the evil direction the cult can take. It's much easier than holding each member responsible for following. Eventually it's easier to hold the whole of the philosophy suspect at the gate.

It is in the human condition to seek something more than the power of their intellect as the ultimate answer to living life. If you take away all the current religions from the human race today, they would not suddenly wake up and become rugged self reliant moral individulists. They would have to face their "Seven Deadly Sin's" alone.  You would be throwing them to the next new unknown bunch of demigogs peddeling hope, salvation, or nirvana.

You can no more remove the human tendancy to religion as you could yell at every single human on the planet to wake up and think for themselves. But, that might lead you to a pulpit with your own following to the "HangTime Way of Living". Human beings want to follow and be part of something. The strong opinions in this thread support this assertion.

You ever think of how strange this could turn if one of these philisophical rugby matches got visited by a real member of the Jihad? I wonder what he would say, and if the moderators would allow it? Would we rattel our sabers at him the way we do at each other, or would we sit in shock and disbelif that someone on this board could beleive in what he is saying? Probably the most talented of us at Blog challenge would try to discredit him as a fraud and troller......................

[bustr]

Originally posted by Silat
Yes we need to be concerned with crossing that EVILLL line. I dont see where we disagree?
Yes we will be strong and march on our enemies as we do now.  
But it shouldnt be in the name of someones GOD.
And it is NAZI's not NATZI's:)
And I would hope that we would never act as the NAZI's did. Killing the enemy is one thing but genocide is another.

I truely fear that if the Jihadist's do have a portable nuke and set it off in a western population center, we as a moral culture will leap to the simplist course of action out of a uncontrolled horror at being so vulnderable to one lone madman and a suit case. Everyone of us can be pushed too far. Don't you think the population of New York or London will be the point at which the attacked group as a whole looses it?

You ever wondered if Japan has forgiven us? They plan business cycles out quite a few years farther than the west does. Seems like some in the Middle East do also.

[Hangtime]

LOL.. that would be about the only thing that could make a rugby match interesting for me.

Thde gullability of the weak is the happy hunting ground of the religious cultists... much to the pain and anquish of those that have different ideas.

Darwin was a genius.