Jon Stewart: We shouldn’t fear Islam any more than Christianity
Stewart is basically trying to point out hypocrisy of Christians, and others, who worry about more mosques being built in America. Let me be the first to say that if Islam really taught love and peace for all people, like Christianity, and would be content under our US constitution, like Christianity, I wouldn’t care. But we know that’s not the case. Islam is a radical religion created by a radical man.
It’s clear that Stewart doesn’t have a clue about Islam as he equivocates it with Christianity in terms of propagation. Christians do go out into the world to build churches and bring people to Christ, but we only seek the individual. We aren’t trying to impose a legal system that will control citizens (ie Iran) and ban speech or other things not allowed for in Islam. Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who has converted to Christianity, has even said that Islam is duping the world by masquerading as a religion, when it’s really a framework of laws intent on world domination. Yeah, I know that sounds an awful lot like ‘Pinky and the Brain’, but it’s true.
Look at what is happening in Turkey. It has slowly come under the influence of Islam at the government level, so much so that now it is an enemy of Israel. Remember the flotilla incident? Yes, Turkey’s conversion didn’t just happen overnight, and from what I understand, it was a very peaceful movement.
So if that is what Jon Stewart wants for the US, then by all means he should say so. Otherwise he should shut his pie hole when pontificating about things he doesn’t understand.
UPDATE: Something that escaped me last night, that is ironically relevant, is that Stewart should have included Comedy Central in its ‘list of hypocrites’ seeing as how they seem to fear Islam much more than Christianity. Remember this?
View Comments to “Jon Stewart: We shouldn’t fear Islam any more than Christianity”
Leave a Reply
subscribe to us
required viewing
Danny (in that 'motherly' scolding tone…)!
Did you just make a reference to the Holocaust?
Don't you find such things… how did you put it, “something…. and DISGUSTING”?
BTW, while no, I am NOT in the gentleman's minds (sorry, flunked clairvoyance class)… I can read his post and come up with a totally different tack/position/meaning as to his intent.
“The solution was several generations back.”
I came up with, automatically, any number of other intents… and NONE of them had to do with genocide (could it be that YOU were “projecting”, just a bit there…).
How about:
DEPORTATION
RESTRICTING ACCESS THROUGH IMMIGRATION
SPOILER ALERT: In the following, I am having a bit of fun with you, using your own words (paraphrased).
You really need to get out of YOUR bubble, and find out how CONSERVATIVES REALLY THINK.
…we don't all have 'itchy' trigger fingers (but most of us will damn sure stand and defend ourselves, and our Republic).
…we don't all (or even .000001% of us) think that extra-American genocide is the cure for all the world's ills.
…we don't even want to 'conquer' the world.
But the world better get the HELL back out of our face, and let us live according to the Founding Principles, mores and Character we received as an inheritance from our forefathers (black, white, etc…. it IS about the CONTENT OF OUR CHARACTER, AND NOT THE COLOR OF OUR SKIN), or we WILL (as a short, wicked-fast Marine brother of mine used to say) make sure there's an ass-kickin'. Mine, or YOURS.
I realize the above-penned isn't very 'scholarly' in its wording. But I think the meaning comes through fairly clear.
And that's the point of “communication”… ain't it?
I'm CM Sackett, and I approved this message.
EDITED… the source of the video has done NOTHING to stand against the travesty they claim to be against. So I removed the link to the video.
~It was about how we MUST stand against these dogs building a 'mosque' at GROUND ZERO~
glad to see that you have some interesting input
No, we don't have to “wait” 700 years for them to “catch up.” Frankly, I don't much care if they ever do. I have had a number of Muslim friends when I lived in London… even dated a couple of Pakistani girls for a time… (my parents weren't pleased. Maybe the fact that we were a Jewish family had something to do with that.) But I don't like the restrictive rules they live by, nothing on earth (or above or beneath it) can get me to pray 5 times a day just for the sake of it, and I have no wish to go to their countries. I believe organized religion with such rules is just mind control by a bunch of dead people.
I would really like for us to reduce our use of fossil fuels enough that we won't need their crude oil any more than we need their palm oil, dates or sand.
We can, in the meantime, go on about our business. But we do need to leave them alone more to go on about theirs. That is, stop proselytizing them, stop messing with their politics, and stop trying to change them to be more like us. For nearly a century, we've treated them like the oil wealth God blessed them with was actually meant for us. I think if we do that, and treat with them with the same respect we'd like them to show us (you know, kinda like that Golden Rule thing), maybe we can eventually get back to the peaceful relations we used to have with them back before we discovered some great uses for all the oil under their feet.
“Prop 8 was done by 60% of California's voting public, not by Christians, so nice try.”
And you think less than 40% of California is Christian? The 60% are what, Muslim-Buddhist-Jewish-Shinto-Wiccan? Nice try on your part, too.
“Also, punishing homosexual activity? Easily matched with stoning a rape victim.” First, I'm not sure that the Quran actually advocates stoning a rape victim. That's more a tribal practice than a religious one, and it was practiced long before Mohammed's time. Anyway, we were discussing bad behavior condoned by the Christian faith. I will concede, the Christian faith has made remarkable progress in the last 100 years.
“The anti-suffrage movement was a political move, not a religious one.”
But ours stems from the common misogyny of the three heritages descended from Abraham, doesn't it?
Oh! So, Israel would have the same “right” to nuke all the Christians too, right?
As DMK said, Jews have been scattered far longer than Islam has been around. Christians were putting us to death all through Europe, but we were living in peace with Muslims under the Ottomans for several centuries. In Spain, we were living in peace while the Moors ruled, and it was a glorious time. Centers of learning like the Alhambra were a haven for artists and intellectuals. It was only after the Catholic Ferdinand and Isabella took over that we were expelled.
That's why I still have faith that one day, peace between Jews and Muslims can be restored. It was there, once. And it endured far longer than the fighting we're going through now. The fighting between them isn't about religion, or even about oil. It's about land and water.
And most Muslims, btw, don't say the Holocaust never happened.
Ahmadinejad, a Shi'ia, doesn't speak for most Muslims, who are Sunni. I think they don't particularly care if the Holocaust happened or not. And really, there's no reason why they would. Their people didn't do it, nor were they the victims of it, and it didn't happen in their lands. It's nothing to do with them, other than being the impetus (to Muslims, the excuse) for Jews to try a lot harder to reestablish their ancestral homeland where they would always be welcomed as refugees.
I'm afraid the pro-sites probably aren't enough. There are many pro-Christian sites that give a very distorted, militant view of Christianity, too. And a lot of pro-Jewish sites that are actually nothing but Zionism, which isn't the same thing at all.
And the Reformation came in at about the 16th century of Christianity. Islam hasn't got there yet. You make my point wonderfully. Back in the days before the Reformation, Christians believed their bible was the inspired word of God, too. People who spoke against it were executed. Same in the early days of Judaism. The things you say Muslims believe about Islam and the Quran, are pretty much the same stuff that Catholics believed about Christ before the Reformation. And until it occurred, the idea of such a schism was unthinkable, and anyone who did think it was a heretic and harshly dealt with.
One of my favorite things about this country is that we actually have conversations. Although might I just say that if you compare the ages of Christianity and Islam…Islam right now is about in the same place as Christianity was in the Middle Ages and YES, SCOOP…Christianity HAS been used as a “law that all shall live under” under KINGS and MONARCHIES…as well as “His Holiness The Pope.”
So…what I'm getting at is simple. You and the rest of your Anti-Islam nuts out there ALSO don't know what you're talking about. Note that I DO AGREE that Stewart doesn't either. Again I beseech you to see in proper context that Iran and other Shiriah Law countries are basically medieval England and will catch up with the relatively free world outside of their crap in about a few hundred years.
This violent “Islamization” that yall are worried about is about the same as the Crusades and Inquisition.
EDUCATION is the key though and I hope I've managed to maybe pierce a couple of close-minded skulls to open up a little bit. G'night, yall.
“Back in the days before the Reformation, Christians believed their bible was the inspired word of God…”
Christians… still do.
“Outlawing abortion, on the other hand, forces women into back-alley abortions where potentially everyone is in danger….”
Now THAT 'logic' is a bit less than 'brilliant'.
Outlawing rape forces the gutless maggots that perpetrate it into the dark to do it… where THANKFULLY, far FAR fewer women are in danger.
Back alleys and filthy, dark places is where those who do such things belong.
_____________________________________________
“I understand your point of view, but the term “babies” is what causes the rift. Not everybody considers an embryo to be a baby,
Until very recently, however, everyone considered waterboarding to be torture.”
“Everyone”?
Really, Danny?
It does begin to make a bit more sense, overall. If people can't tell when a human being is a human… BEING, no wonder they think thumping murderous curr dogs around, to keep them/their pack from murdering again… 'unfair', or 'torturous'.
Seriously skewed reality, of a necessity begets an equally skewed 'morality'.
Point?
Danny, if the murderous, determined 'bad guys' are the BAD guys… then quit joining in the piss-fest on the GOOD GUYS for doing their job (of breaking through that determination, WITHOUT KILLING OR MAIMING, in order to STOP the murdering).
If they are not… then don't stop at words, typed out on a keyboard. Pledge your life, treasures and honor to their 'cause'… that is EXACTLY what I (and many fellow Americans) have done in opposition TO THEM.
Sackett
ascribing to himself every human excellence
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. “
“
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. “
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
“If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.”
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
“Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.”
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”
“The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible.”
In fact, it sounds exactly like a Deist. Even the reference to Jesus carefully avoids any reference to Jesus as begotten son of God, and goes so far as to say that Jesus himself wanted people attached to what the principles he taught about how to live with regard to life and God, rather than the stuff others taught about Jesus.
“According to scholars, God is referenced in the Bible over 4000 times. I could offer that as proof of God's existence. “
God exists, but so does everything imaginable, everywhere. Including the Tooth Fairy. They all exist, in that if they are referenced, it can be known what is being referred to, even if it's only an imaginary concept, like the Tooth Fairy. The question is, is God real, or imaginary?
I'm sure Gene Roddenberry made at least as many references to Starfleet in his writings, as have all the other Star Trek authors . It proves nothing about whether Starfleet is real or imaginary. And the Bible similarly can't prove whether God is real or imaginary, no matter how many times He's referred to.
But instead of killing each other, now they just publish different versions of the Bible, and call the other versions flawed… inaccurate… untrue.
Taken together, this means all of them are flawed… inaccurate… untrue.
Uh…..ok.
First of all,had you really read the second quote, in which he proclaims himself “I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others;” however Jefferson was ardently in opposition to most organized religions and the fact he was raised as an Anglican reinforced this view. He was particularly opposed to the Orthodox Branch followed by the Church of Rome (Catholicism),a typically Protestant based view in relation to restricting accessibility to God by the clergy of these faiths.That is not to say he was all that enthusiastic about the Protestant church either, he seemed from his works to favor an individual relationship with God.Perhaps you are familiar with his work finished in 1820 entitled ” Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”, later published by Congress. Jefferson was by no means shy about pointing out the flaws of the organized Churches as flawed creations corrupted by individuals, in this I agree with him wholeheartedly agree. However to cherry pick his work and to draw from that the conclusion that he was an atheist is mistaken.
I don't actually recall saying that he was an Atheist – or, for that matter, a deist (although if he were alive today I have no doubt he would be; science has come quite a ways since then – but that's a personal opinion and not one that we need to dispute, since it can't be proven either way). And I am quite familiar with the Jefferson Bible. I also believe that he took out any reference to divinity of Jesus and laid out the basic moral foundations in the New Testament. I think that the Jefferson Bible is a perfectly good treatise on morality.
I think, however, that we can both agree that Jefferson would not be happy to see that his beloved Virginia has become home to places like Liberty University.
If Jefferson was a Deist,those who believe that God created the Universe,then abandoned it, why even go through the efforts to bring up the teachings of Jesus,especially given the teachings that God cares about his creations. The writings of Lord Herbert of Cherbury who wrote “De Veritate” in which he lists five Articles of English “Deists”;
1. Belief in the existence of a single supreme God
2. Humanity's duty to revere God
3. Linkage of worship with practical morality
4. God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins
5. Good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death
These five “Articles” fly in the face of the very premise of Deism,that God abandoned his creation. It would in fact suggest that the English “Deists” only appropriated the name to thumb their noses at the Church of England and nothing more. The very concept of Deism suggests that prayer is a exercise in futility as God does not care. As to the term “Son of God” this is a Christian metaphor to convey the belief of God as our creator as “our Father” in the sense that he is responsible for our creation.This is a tenet of organized churches of Christianity, so as Jefferson opposed these it is no real surprise he avoids the use of that metaphor.
Muslims today have repeatedly denied the existence of the Jewish Temple upon the Temple Mount in order,most likely, to further their claim on the Mount. However, this appears to be a lie, I submit for consideration this excerpt from the writings of Muḥammad ibn Isḥaq ibn Yasār who published the earliest written account of the Prophet Muhammad's life known as the Sirat Rasul Allah.
He writes of the “Night Ride of Muhammad”,Ishaq 182:” When we arrived at the Temple in Jerusalem,we found Abraham,Moses,and Jesus,along with a company of prophets.I acted as their Iman in prayer.” Given the approximate date of the “Night Ride” of 620 AD, and the accepted date of the construction of the Dome of The Rock at 689-691 AD,seems to invalidate the Muslim statement that the Jewish Temple did not exist. Something to think about.
It was your reply to Don17000 “I know, and Thomas Jefferson was most likely an Atheist, but those points do not resonate at all with this crowd.” to which that was in response to. Actually I think Jefferson would have issue with quite a few things in this country nowadays.
I very much doubt his views resonated with all English Deists. They are not a monolithic bunch. Further, he was born nearly 100 years before Jefferson was born. While Jefferson was no doubt familiar with Herbert's writings, I'm not sure he agreed with them, or indeed if any English Deist in Jefferson's day did. Thomas Paine identified himself as a Deist, but I don't think he agreed with all of these 5.
This appears to be a political position of Yasser Arafat's, who tried to say that the Tempe was actually in Nablus, a city founded by Vespasian c. 72 CE.
I'm not sure if anyone adhered to it prior to 2000, and it appears to be utter nonsense… but may have been offered as a counter to the longstanding Israeli claim that there's no such thing as a “Palestinian people” and that they don't really exist, hence their claims don't, either.
“Outlawing rape forces the gutless maggots that perpetrate it into the dark to do it… where THANKFULLY, far FAR fewer women are in danger.”
Actually, though they have to go into the dark to do it, those who need it done also have to go into the dark the get the service. This puts far MORE women in danger.
“Back alleys and filthy, dark places is where those who do such things belong.”
Surely, they should be in the light, where they can be seen and it can be sure that the medical procedure (that's what it is, after all) is done properly,and only by those who know how.
————
As for waterboarding.. it doesn't prevent anything. There's no way it can. Give me the direst of circumstances, where it appears to be the only option when a bomb is known to be in place somewhere and time is ticking away… and you have to admit the targeted informant also knows time is running out, but knows also it's on his side because the fact that they are torturing him only expresses their helplessness and desperation. He also knows he can stop the process and buy more time by sending his tormentors on a wild goose chase with made-up information until he's certain it's too late, then score his victory by laughing in their faces. Even if they kill him for it.. they still lose.
Professional, reputable interrogators don't use torture, because it just doesn't work. It gets more false leads than real ones. And chasing down the false leads wastes time and resources, and alienates other potential informants.
The only successful use has historically been to elicit confessions to false information for propaganda purposes. You torture them, and they'll admit to spying and subversion, even if they weren't doing any.
“…we don't even want to 'conquer' the world.”
Ever hear of PNAC? Project for a New American Century. They don't control the WH and Congress any more, but I think they haven't gone away. They were still active when Clinton was in the WH.
As for, “…But the world better get the HELL back out of our face, ..” They could argue it's us who is in the world's face. Try Googling Operation Ajax. [That's a 1953 operation where Ike experimented by allowing Norman Schwartzkopf (Stormin' Norman's father) and Kermit Roosevelt (Theodore's CIA grandson) to pull a coup in Iran, deposing their duly elected PM Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah Reza Pahlavi, who began a brutally suppressive reign. The reason was oil. Mossadegh was going to nationalize Iran's oil industry,which would have been bad for the AIOC – Anglo Iranian Oil Corporation – which is now known as BP. Ike was so impressed with the success that he copied the operation throughout South America.)
These things weren't part of our Founding Principles, I don't think. Those, and our mores and character have yielded sway to a desire of our private sector for corporate world dominance, and a willingness by our government to help them any way possible, because helping them means improving things for Americans.
Our military budget is greater than the next 4 combined. We have the largest standing army and navy in the world, for a nation that doesn't require military service. We have tens of thousands of troops all over the world, even in peaceful places, where no threat exists or is even perceived. No other nation has that. And you say they should get out or our face?
“Actually, though they have to go into the dark to do it, those who need it done also have to go into the dark the get the service. This puts far MORE women in danger.”
NOTE ESPECIALLY… “…those who (NEED) it done…”
You suppose a “need” where NONE ever exists.
“But, OH!” you say, “You forget the instances where a mother's life may be at stake”.
…no. But being a parent, I can tell you ~ there is NEVER a time (EVER) when I would choose MY “life”, over the breathing, living, laughing, crying, struggling, succeeding, failing, learning, growing LIFE… of one of my children.
EVER.
And should I ever choose such… I should be shot in the head before I could utter such a gutless, foul word.
EVERY HUMAN BEING WANTS TO “LIVE”. Parents want their children to… MORE.
And then there is this little 'gem' from you ~
“Surely, they should be in the light, where they can be seen and it can be sure that the medical procedure (that's what it is, after all) is done properly,and only by those who know how.”
NOTE ESPECIALLY, “…that the medical procedure ([THAT'S WHAT IT IS, AFTER ALL])…”
…so is completely removing each and every limb of every full-grown, murdering TERRORIST, down to the socket ~ severing the head, opening the body cavity and sucking out all organs with a vacuum attachment, and completely removing them from the womb of this world.
Oh, I'm sorry. Forgot.
THAT 'medical procedure' (and others JUST AS GRUESOME) is ONLY reserved for… what does your ilk call them? Oh yes ~ “fetus”.
Doing any such thing (let alone the completely NON-life taking, NON-maiming, NON-permanent procedure of WATERBOARDING) to a proven maggot in the gut of the world is…
…'torture'.
Don, I know that even SHOWING YOU just how sick and twisted your reasoning is… won't affect ANY change. The God who made us BOTH, loves us BOTH (I was no 'angel' in my pre-washed days)… the God I freely acknowledge and you deny… can do that.
So, I'll leave that up to you two.
_____________________________________________
Your second 'answer' shows that either:
1. You've lied about your age (“born during Ike's presidency”)
2. You've never been out of your mother's house
…no, really.
“Professional, reputable interrogators don't use torture, because it just doesn't work…”
Then, eons of interrogators and 'inquisitors' must have been, all, rank-amateurs.
1. YOU KNOW NO (as in NONE!) “professional, reputable (where the Hell that came from, I can't even begin to guess… 'Oh, you can trust THIS one. He graduated summa cum laude from URI ~ University of Reputable Interrogators”) interrogators.
2. I do.
…oops, there's those danged FACTS getting in the way of your shoveling again!
Tell ya what, “Don”. You cite 3 sources to back up that pile… er, hmmm, CLAIM.
…I can damn-sure do the same counter-wise.
______________________________________________
One more and I'm done. You put out so much donkey-doo, answering you becomes a stable exercise, itself.
You said (authoritatively): “The only successful use has historically been to elicit confessions to false information for propaganda purposes. You torture them, and they'll admit to spying and subversion, even if they weren't doing any.”
Wow. Really? “The only (SUCCESSFUL) use has (HISTORICALLY) been…”
Cite yer sources, child… mine are already sittin' here, itchin'.
CM Sackett
You seemed to have overlooked a few “minor” details,in your attempt to “educate” us. So here is a little counter-point,
711 AD The Invasion of Spain by Muslim forces.
732 AD The Battle of Tours,France where Charles Martel defeated and turned back the Muslim Invaders.
711-1492 AD The Reconquista of Spain.
1095-1291 AD The Crusades,all seven of them.
1342-1683 AD Ottoman (Muslim) Invasion of Europe. You could technically extend the end date to 1918 when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved at the end of WW1.The 1683 date is the Siege of Vienna,when the Invasion of Europe was turned back.
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked the end of the Thirty Years War and settled the matter of the Reformation.
As to the Inquistion, there are actually four, The Medieval,which led to the Protestant Reformation, The Spanish and Portuguese,1478 and 1536 respectively and finally the Roman in 1542,the later three were limited to their respective nations, the Spanish and Portuguese were ordered by the ruling Monarchs Ferdinand II of Spain and Joao III of Portugal.The Roman was set up by Pope Paul III and was confined to the Papal States. These were what boiled down to doctrinal disputes within the Catholic Church in what amounted to Catholic states not actions of conquest.I would not even try to dispute the barbarity and heinousness of the actions of the Inquistions or excuse it. I would also point out that they are irrelevant in a comparison of the Crusades and the Muslim Invasions. However you are incredibly naive Tyler, if you think that Islam is a religion of peace and that there are not very influential and powerful voices in the Muslim world that are calling for the establishment of the “Caliphate”. One final note in closing,if you believe that Islam is nothing except a religion, then it is you who are the close-minded and under educated one.
You should go back and reread my post. I never stated Jefferson was an English Deist merely that the “English” Deist statements were at odds with the definition of Deism. I am pointing out essentially that you cannot paint different views and practices of religion with a broad brush and call it whatever,which is essentially what you are attempting to do. I have even seen Deist sites try to label Washington as a Deist when his own writings state otherwise. As to Paine I have never looked into his beliefs, although I'll get there eventually.
I would think that Vespasian would have a far better idea of the location of the Temple his son Tiberius destroyed in 70 AD or CE was located,than Arafat. It was in Jerusalem,which Tiberius laid siege to and in the process destroyed the Temple of the Jews,that brought to an end (with the exception of the siege of Masada) the last Jewish Revolt that began in 66 AD/CE.
There have actually been 3 temples, ALL built in Jerusalem…
1. The temple that Solomon built, which stood for over 400 years, and was destroyed by the invading Babylonians, in 586 BC.
2. The temple, rebuilt (on a lesser-scale and level of 'grandeur'), 70 years later, by returning refugees under the leadership of EZRA… and NEHEMIAH (you can read about this time in the book of EZRA ~especially ch. 2~)
3. The temple built by Herod (as a bribe to the Jewish 'religious leaders' to keep the peace… so Rome would be more 'impressed' with Herod's stewardship). This one was the grandest in scale and ornamentation.
It was leveled by the general TITUS (Quinctius Flamininus), as Ken noted so truly, in 70AD.
NOTE: During the centuries the Muslims controlled Palestine, two mosques were built on the site of the Jewish Temple. (This was no coincidence; it is a common Islamic custom to build mosques on the sites of other people's holy places.)
…GROUND ZERO is indeed, for this Republic, a HOLY place.
NO mosque. NO MORE capitulation.
BTW, Ken… a tip-o-the-hat, sir. Your grasp of History is proving to be well established, and broad ~ as well as REFRESHING. Thank you for your inputs!
Sackett
Thank you Sir and back at ya.
You're confusing Christians with church 'goers'.
That's alright… I did the same thing for too many years.
Thank you both for the history lesson. The point is, the Temple deniers appear to be more concerned with modern day politics and negotiation than history. We have no disagreement here.
I'm sure you overlooked a few minor details, too. The spread of Christianity through Europe by the allegedly converted Constantine, was accomplished by war. (His conversion is disputed, many believing it to be more of a convenient political stand to unite his people. His mother's conversion was undoubtedly genuine. Constantine, who had professed a devotion to Sol Invictus, negotiated some terms that a genuine convert wouldn't have bothered with, such as establishing Christmas at the winter solstice (despite the gospel accounts of shepherds in the fields with their flocks, where they certainly wouldn't have been in the dead of winter) and moving the Sabbath to Sunday.
The point is, Islam was spreading the same way in the years leading up to its Golden Age. Also, you have the Reconquista of Spain occurring at the same time as the Invasion of Spain. The Moors never really owned the whole peninsula… Asturias always remained unconquerable to them, as it had to the Romans. Some say the Reconquista began in 718 at Covadonga… but this appears to have been more of a resistance movement rather than the beginning of the Reconquista. It would be like saying that the liberation of Europe from the Nazis began not with D-Day, but with the skirmishes of the Nazis and the Maquis. The Muslims certainly dominated the al-Andalus region in the south (and it is still called Andalucia today), and there was no Reconquista there until 1492. The Alhambra was built about 150 years before the end of Moorish rule. But under Moorish rule in Spain, the Moors did coexist in relative peace with Christians and Jews for many years. In 785 in Cordoba, the Emir actually went to the trouble of purchasing the Christian half of the Church or San Vicente (which Muslim and Catholic had shared for 50 years) to build the great place known as Mezquita. The Muslims were nowhere else in Europe but Iberia at this time, and Iberia was the intellectual pinnacle of the continent in arts and medicine and philosophy. Elsewhere in Europe, the Catholics were commandeering the arts and suppressing the sciences.
I very much doubt that the Christians, had they been in control, would have allowed Muslims and Jews to flourish to the same intellectual and spiritual extent. As evidence of this, I point out that when they did win control… they killed or expelled everyone else.
You also overlook the intention and practice of spreading Christianity worldwide, either by missionaries or conquistadors, and the wiping out or supplanting of indigenous cultures and religions.
Also I'm wondering now if the divide between Muslim Sunni and Shia isn't more akin to the split in Catholicism between Roman and Byzantine, than the reformation… but I don't know a whole lot about what precipitated that split. Obviously, it had a lot to do with the Papacy and traditions handed down by the Greek-dominated east and the Roman-dominated west. But I haven't been able to clearly understand exactly what the conceptual differences are. When I research it, all I find are the ritual differences. To me, rituals are just mind-control by a bunch of dead people, and I can't understand what makes them so important.
They can't outlaw Jihad.. it means more than a war against the infidels. Jihad literally means, “struggle” is also the name given to the struggle we all go through internally, as our better nature wrestles with the temptations to do what is expedient.
Basically, Islam and Christianity have switched places on the scale of tolerance. It used to be that Islam was tolerant, especially of “the People Of The Book” and Catholicism tortured and executed heretics. Now, Christianity mostly shrugs at heresy, while Islam issues fatwas.
” You do know that some of these people have nukes, right? I don't think they're going to wait 700 years to use it.”
We sure as hell didn't.
First, let's get one thing straight… “the God I freely acknowledge and you deny… can do that.” I freely acknowledge God's existence, also. I don't deny God. I believe in His existence and reality, but only because I choose to. Not because I've seen anything by which I think proves He's real, because I haven't. Maybe He is. Maybe not. It doesn't matter to me if He is or not. I've just decided to believe that He does, because I can do that.
Now, to pick apart your arguments, such as they are…
Abortions can only be done on a fetus. If it's done on a separate person, it's called homicide. There are times when I'm in favor of homicide. I support the death penalty where guilt is assured and indisputable, and it's virtually assured that the convicted will kill again.
There are not times when I'm in favor of torture. It doesn't get good information. It gets whatever the subject thinks will make the torture stop. All it amounts to, is trying to exact revenge, usually for what someone else did.
Comparing torture with abortion is like comparing apples to rocks, a pointless exercise.
I'm a father of three. Choosing between saving their lives or my own… I would choose as you would. But if the death of the fetus is assured, should the mother's life be thrown away too? What about any other children? Have they no right to a mother? When one death is unavoidable, why should two have to die? There are times when we must make hard choices.
As for the debate about the efficacy of torture…
No point in going through how many sources each of us can cite. I'm sure I can cite as many contemporary experts as you. Historically, torture was used effectively by the Inquisitors, by Communists, by Nazis, by the French Legion. It was most effective in extracting false confessions, so that an execution or lengthy imprisonment could be justified. The ones who used it weren't so interested in the finding the truth, but in confirming what they already suspected. In the end, the only proof they ever got, was usually the tortured confession. All further efforts to find the truth usually ended after that, so it's generally unknown if what they got was the entire truth, or even any part of it.
Even in those cases where someone might have made a true confession during torture, there is no way to know if the confession might have been obtained any other way.
“We have no disagreement here”
Aye, indeed.
Oh, and my sincere APOLOGIES! for making a declarative statement about your convictions/stance about the existence of God.
My mistake, and more to the point… MY WRONG.
Again, I apologize DON.
CM Sackett
I see your Project for a New American Century (which has not published a paper or issued a statement since 2006) and raise you with The Center for American Progress, who gave us such gems as the massive Healthcare bill, chaired by John Podesta who among other things was the head of our current President's transition team.
Yes, we have all heard of our government's involvement in the coup that put the Shah back on the Throne in Iran. If you'd like to delve into US backed coups, how about the coup in Vietnam to overthrow Diem that was backed and “greenlighted” by Kennedy? How about the one in 1964 to overthrow Minh backed and approved by Johnson? By the way one coup in Guatemala is not “throughout South America”.
As to our Military, we have “carried the water” militarily for NATO and the UN since the founding of both organizations,provided essentially “free” national defense for western Europe throughout the Cold War,which freed up their treasuries to pursue the Social Democratic Government run services that have now caught up to them economically. If you had a clue about Conservatives,you would then be aware of the great many of us that favor bringing ALL of our troops home,from all places that they are stationed overseas. In closing your ranking of the size of our Armed Forces is incorrect, China possesses the largest Armed Forces in the world with a total of 2,555,000 uniformed members,current US forces are 1,625,852 these numbers are pretty current, I'll even give you a source, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ac... this site is one of the most accurate and comprehensive sites for military information.
A few details overlooked ,well yes, it was not meant to be a concise history but a general timeline. The point being to show that it was Muslim aggression first not Christian aggression as shown in the dates. As to the start of the Reconquista, dates to vary but just as many place it beginning in 711 as 718,so in the spirit of compromise I'll place it sometime between 711-718. However comparing battles between full Armies to the Maquis v. German Army in France is so far fetched as to be nearly ludicrous. The Maquis managed one notable stand against the German Army,but were decimated in that battle and never engaged in pitched battle again.
As to Constantine, his sincerity in his conversion is dubious as he was not baptized until he was on his deathbed,it was likely more a matter of political expedience rather than an actual conversion.He was interested only in reestablishing the former boundaries of the old Roman Empire and securing power for himself than converting anyone to Christianity whether by sword or edict. As to the point you raise about whether Spanish Christians would have allowed Muslims and Jews to coexist there it was not relevant to my point or response it was not overlooked as most of us here know the answer to that already,ie the expulsion edicts in Spain. The subject of expansion in the New World was not relative either.
In closing you are basically correct in comparing the split between Suuni and Shia or Shiite to Romans and Easterns its mostly Doctrinal.
Thanks, and apology accepted. Mine is a position many have trouble understanding.. Some assert it impossible to genuinely believe in something without being convinced it's true. I maintain that we do it all the time about a great many things, we're just conditioned not to feel that way about God.
But the health care bill was only to affect Americans, in America. PNAC was to affect the rest of the world, and change it in America's favor.
I say that we need to get out of interfering in world politics. Period. We've been doing it for far too long, under Republican and Democratic administrations, and it's nothing new. The coups in VietNam were, I think, errors. We should have interceded on Ho Chih Minh's behalf with France back when he first asked us for help. We could have mediated negotiations with the French for their independence, and avoided 10 costly years of war.
As for the question of armed force size… when I said we had the largest in the world, I said for a nation that doesn't require military service. Technically, military service is still compulsory although the requirement is not enforced. But what I had in mind when I said “largest in the world”, was more about deployment than size. For all its size, but the PLA is deployed inside China, or regions (like Tibet) claimed to be part of China. We have our forces deployed throughout the world, including places like Spain which has never been vital to our security and where I'm not sure we've ever yet fought a battle. We still have tens of thousands in Okinawa, where we've not fought a battle in 60 years, and probably never will again.
I think these deployments have to end sometime.
I wasn't thinking about church-goers at all. I'm married to a Catholic church-goer. There are many Catholic positions she doesn't agree with, and she just ignores them. My son is a church-goer and does the same. Some call him a “cafeteria Catholic” because of this. I tell him he can retort that Jesus and his followers were “cafeteria Jews,” which was the source of many of their issues with the Pharisees.
My daughters also ignore most of the church's positions, but aren't church-goers. Believe me, I know the difference between Christians and churchgoers.
But in my statement, I think what I'm doing is including those Christians who thought it necessary to retranslate the Bible… because they believed that the existing translation was wrong, and found fault with the books included therein.
And I'm also including militant Christians. Some may call this an oxymoron. But Jesus said he came to bring a sword, and even took pains to verify that his followers had a couple. I don't think he was merely concerned they should have something to beat into ploughshares for a metallurgy class at Jerusalem U.
The Center for American Progress does indeed have an effect of influence on foreign policy,however both institutions are think tanks and there are as many of them as there are political viewpoints.
As to our forces' various deployments or bases,the bases in Europe are NATO bases and as I previously stated we have “carried the water” or shouldered more than our share of the burden for that organization and the UN since the inception of both.Most folks that look at those bases only seem to see the US forces and somehow overlook the forces of other NATO contingents present,strange how that happens isn't it? In case you missed it, I stated that are many of us that would love nothing better than to bring our troops home from where ever they are stationed overseas,that translates to “Bring them ALL home”. Trust me I have heard the chant “Yankee go home” personally. But when they get into the deep “stuff”,who do they come whining to saying “save us,help us”?
By the way,were you aware that the US originally supported Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese and the French, our involvement in Vietnam (troops in country) actually goes back to 1946 and the Truman administration.It wasn't really Kennedy's war although he did crank it up.
Military service in this country has been voluntary for over thirty years, registration with Selective Service is mandatory thanks to Carter,but don't worry Jimmy said that it's not the draft, actually it is, check out the Selective Service Act of 1980 which revived the Acts of 1917,1940 and the draft. As for “The Rock”(Okinawa) we have begun to shut it down,you recall Congressman Hank Johnson's concerns about Guam capsizing? It was in the hearings about the draw down of the Third Marine Division and it's related Air Wing along with the Air Force's Bases there as well,at least it was til the Japanese Prime Minister withdrew his demand that it be closed for some odd reason. To your final statement “I think these deployments have to end sometime.” We are in complete agreement on that point.
I'm not an “Islam apologist” as a certain someone who I'm surprised didn't respond to this has called me multiple times. I think Islam is every bit as much of a double-edged blade if you will as Christianity. Technically ALL religions are. They can all be used for good OR evil depending on WHO is wielding the blade.
Also, Kenin…you would mean to tell me that the Inquisition happened BECAUSE OF MUSLIMS? The Church persecuted ANYONE (whether Muslim or Jewish…heck…even non-Catholic Christians) who didn't follow the “state religion” basically of “His Holiness The Pope.” There are some interesting journals from Jewish people of that time actually which talk about how they would force Jewish people to eat “non-kosher” food to prove that they had “converted.”
Or did Jewish people bring about the attacks from the Catholics through some kind of “Jewish Jihad” that nobody's talking about?
Tyler you really need to brush up on your comprehension skills. Just how did you arrive at this conclusion? “Also, Kenin…you would mean to tell me that the Inquisition happened BECAUSE OF MUSLIMS?” See you made this statement”This violent “Islamization” that yall are worried about is about the same as the Crusades and Inquisition.” What I was pointing out was the fact that the Inquisition had nothing to do with either of them.
As to the rest of your “rant” I can only guess that it is something to do with the Reconquista and the expulsion edicts that followed. But quite frankly your statement sounds like you're accusing me of Anti Semitism. I never undertook expounding on the complexities of what may have led to the atrocities of that period ,because for one it wasn't relative to the discussion and quite frankly it appears to me that its beyond your ability to comprehend what I'd be saying,as witnessed by your apparent gross misinterpretation of what I posted. BTW if you really want to compare the the tolerance of Islam and say,oh,Catholicism,here is an exercise to undertake;first go to Vatican City stand on the corner and preach the values of ,oh lets say Buddhism,see what happens( I'll bet you survive that unscathed) then go to Mecca and do the same thing.Let me know how that works out for you.
My comparison of the Maquis to Covadonga was based not upon the fact of it being a pitched battle, but upon it being essentially a local resistance movement. The Maquis were basically using small arms fire against tanks. Can't really compare this to Covadonga, where the locals and the Moors were both using blades, arrows and spears… basically using weapons of about the same level, and I doubt the numbers would have been that far apart, either. The locals actually had a chance of winning, and they did. A far more evenly matched confrontation than the Maquis against the Nazis.
I knew we had personnel in Nam during Truman's time, but I thought it was more military advisers than troops. Our first casualty there was in 1945, when an American officer was mistaken for a Frenchman. But what I was saying, was that Truman should have recognized Ho's fledgling government back then, especially when Ho actually quoted our Declaration of Independence from Britain in making his own against the French. But Truman repeatedly ignored him.
As for NATO… there's a lot of it I really don't get. When I lived in Spain, and went to school at Torrejon AFB for a year (my Dad arranged it somehow – we weren't in the military) it was 1964-1968, Spain was still under Franco and not yet part of NATO. They joined NATO in 1982. No idea why. It wasn't like NATO really needed Spain's help to contain Brezhnev or anything.