Jon Stewart: We shouldn’t fear Islam any more than Christianity

The secular, unprincipled liberals want moral schizophrenia where America is all things to all people. The sanctimonious, war-mongering neocons want to impose a corrupt view of Christianity by bombing every nation into confessing their sins.

Our nation was clearly founded on Judeo-Christian principles. We should proudly state to the entire world that we honor only one religion – Christianity. And we should begin doing so as soon we actually convert to it.

No. It was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Remember the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by “their” Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

THEIR creator. Not THE Creator. And that's just the first of many instances that show that this land was to be for ALL. Now, I agree with Stewart that we shouldn't fear one religion more than another. While Christianity preaches peace and love, it's followers do not practice it in general.

Come on, ANYONE… post up a verifiable match of “christian” “PEACE”…

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Sackett

Every islamic family is a troy horse,they will live peacefully amongst us until the day when they are called to destroy us

Read your last sentence: “While Christianity preaches peace and love, it's followers do not practice it in general. “

Without meaning to, you just summed up the difference between Christianity and Islam. Christians who do horrible things are NOT practicing Christianity. Muslims who do horrible things ARE practicing Islam. That is the difference. That's why all mainstream Christians immediately condemn acts of violence committed in the name of Jesus Christ. That is why you will never find a Christian who does not condemn Fred Phelps and his band of twisted followers (which consists, by the way, of about 40 members of his extended family and no one else).

Islam is completely different. Everything a terrorist does is not only allowed under Islam, it is considered a duty of all Muslims. People love to say that the Koran condemns suicide and the murder of innocent people. They love to quote the flowery passages that tell a Muslim to only fght aggression and oppression and to stop fighting as soon as peace is offered.

All that is true. But what they don't say is that dying in defense of Islam is not considered suicide. They don't say that killing a non-believer is not considered murder. They don't tell you that under Islam there is no such thing as an innocent non-Muslim. They don't tell you that “aggression” and “oppression” mean the mere existence of a non-Muslim state and that “peace” means total surrender to Muslim domination and rule.

People wonder how a Muslim can kill children so cold bloodily. They must be insane, right? What could possibly make a grown man (or woman) aim his gun at a child running for his life and shooting that child in the back? That's what happened at Beslan. How could this be? What could make someone do such a thing? Islam, that's what.

You see, under Islam only Allah can decide who is a true Muslim. Only Allah judges the innocence of a terrorists victims. The terrorist doesn't worry about who his victims will be because they are not his problem. Allah will sort it out and any “innocent” will be judged so by Allah and go to Paradise. That's why Muslims kill so many other Muslims and why they have no problem attacking Mosques. Their victims are simply not their concern.

Most Muslims are peaceful in spite of Islam, not because of it. That's because most people are inherently decent, and because most Muslims have never read the Koran and Hadiths.

In the end it doesn't matter what Christians have done or do. Attacking Christianity is not a defense of the horrible excuse for a religion called Islam. Unless you're a liberal, which makes it your only defense.

no dude they arent all trojan horses. every muslim is not an extremist. saying crazy stuff like that is what gives us a bad name and makes us sound as uneducated as say john stewart

you're a blind man,sorry for you.

Hey guys, you know what's a really bad sign for your civilization? And also extremely unconstitutional? Banning houses of worship! Period, the end!

If you think that the Bible doesn't have anything that can't be taken to induce violence, you should really all go reread… the Bible. Deuteronomy in particular – lots of offenses to be punishable by stoning in there.

Terrible things that Christians have done in the past 100 years? Hmm, well, I would argue that prop 8 is right up there, but since I know I won't get much support for that, what about the Ugandan law that wants to punish people for homosexuality with death – that is all sorts of wrapped up in the US fundamentalist Christian movement. Erm, do Mormons count? Because then Warren Jeffs comes into play. I was also uncomfortable with former President Bush's evocation of Christ when discussing the moral imperative that was the Iraq war (and all those CRAZY briefings Rumsfeld gave him). What about BJU's no-interracial-dating policy? The anti-suffrage movement in the early 20th century was also championed by religious leaders…

The Orthodox Jewish and Amish communities, and, these days, the Catholic Church has also been allowed to live outside our laws.

And I know it's been more than a hundred years, but the Spanish inquisition certainly comes to mind. Also, is nobody remembering the conquistadors? Also, the Salem Witch Trials.

Oh, oh, oh, I know! Abortion clinic bombings!

Let me be clear about one thing: I believe that we are at war with radical Islam.

But this should not make us abandon our principles, or we're no better than they are.

Question: Do think that it is possible – and I'm not assigning any blame to anybody who's alive today nor is it our responsibility – but is it possible that Islam's views of Christianity are at least partially influenced by things like, say, the Crusades? I mean, the religion was pretty young back then, and we did kind of slaughter them wholesale.

I'm posing this as a purely intellectual question. Do not interpret this as an attack on anyone's particular religious faith – I respect your right to do as you please.

Oh, oh, oh, I know! Abortion clinic bombings!

Baby killing factories.

The liberals whine about water boarding terrorists but have no problem with ripping apart babies.

There is no solution,we are outnumbered and we are doomed.The solution was several generations back.

I don't believe in violence and killing. I'm happy to hear you don't believe in third trimester abortions. Abortions are one of the most violent acts on this earth. I don't approve of any abortion of convenience in any case, no matter which trimester. Unless raped or the mother's life is in danger, I am totally against this act. This has nothing to do with any religion. This has everything to do with loving life.

You say that God is not mentioned in the Constitution even once. You offer that as evidence of our “secular” roots.

According to scholars, God is referenced in the Bible over 4000 times. I could offer that as proof of God's existence.

Neither you nor I can make a substantive argument with these assertions.

The fact that God is mentioned so often in the Bible does not convince me of His existence. However, I am convinced that He exists because I see His presence in the splendor of nature and the majesty of the universe.

I don't know if God is mentioned in the Constitution, but He is woven throughout the fabric of our history and our culture.

You cite such things as slavery and chauvinism. I assume you regard these as further evidence that the doctrines of Christianity did not govern our society. On the contrary, my friend. Slavery and chauvinism did not exist because of a lack of Christian teachings, but because of the “corruption” of Christian teachings. The Bible speaks of slaves honoring their masters and women submitting themselves to their husbands. Such scriptures were twisted to justify the policies and practices of a sanctimonious people who were extremely religious. Don't forget that Jesus was scorned by religious people, and that the feeling was mutual.

We can still see evidence of this Pharisaical theology by gullible Christians who have been brainwashed by the religious evangelists of television and the political evangelists of talk radio.

They eagerly wave their flags and support wars all over the world. They advocate brutal violence against Muslim nations that have no army, navy or air force. They see every Iraqi and Afghan citizen as a threat to our security, but wonder why they see us as a threat to their security.

I wonder how many civilians have been killed or maimed for every terrorist we've killed or maimed? Most Christians don't seem to care about that. I don't support the cruelty and insanity of the Islamic mindset. I don't support the cruelty and insanity of the American or Israeli mindset either.

Nevertheless, we were/are a Christian nation…warts and all. And now, we have a lot to answer for.

This will be my last post for this thread, but feel free to respond if you wish. I respect your right to disagree.

Christianity only seeks the individual, not the nation, and this is different from Islam.. but it's also at a different point in the timeline. Islam was founded in the 7th century, making it about 13-14 centuries old, or roughly 56 generations. Christianity is currently about 2000 years old, or about 80 generations. Now, look back to when Christianity was 1300-1400 years old. What were they doing? Were they still only after individuals? Or were they doing whatever they could to dominate the European continent politically? Let me give you a hint… 1307 was the year the Templars were arrested en masse and their property seized. And 1492, besides being when Columbus set sail, is also the year when the same Ferdinand and Isabella, aka Los Reyes Catolicos expelled all the Jews from Spain and confiscated their property. It was the time of the Spanish Inquisition. And 1517 is when Martin Luther posted his note on the Church of All Saints. Protestants and Catholics soon came to blows against each other, much like the Shia and Sunni did in Islam. The Church banned speech… they called the banned speech heresy, and they were every bit as brutal, ruthless and uncompromising in doing so. They even invented something new called excommunication… as though a guy in a gown and a funny hat had the power to decide to who gets into Heaven. Even Islam left that up to God's discretion. You sure you want to go here?

So, I'll take the long view. Give Islam another 700 years or so to mature, then see where they are.

As for what bad they've done in the last 100 years… Seems to me there were plenty of instances of the Church taking away the children of non-Christians to be raised by Christian families, wherever they could get the government to permit them to do it (that would be Canada, Australia… children of aboriginals and Indians), but I'm not sure it was within the 100 year timeline. If they stopped, it would have been because public outrage compelled the government to stop them, not because they figured out it was wrong. Then there was the hell they sentenced untold millions of people to by not permitting divorce. The church coverups of the child molestation scandals, dealing with it by merely transferring the offending priest somewhere else… or worse, calling the victims “liars.”

Oh, and before I forget… they have tried to influence laws in America, too. And yes, in the last 100 years. Anybody remember Prohibition? Of course, it could be argued that Prohibition was not really a bad thing… unless you're against the concept of Big Government dictating who can drink what… Still, let's try for something more recent… Does Griswold v Connecticut ring a bell? That was where government was dictating whether a married couple could use birth control, or even get information about using birth control in their bedroom from someone other than a doctor… and that was 1965 not quite 50 years ago. And I don't think anyone can argue that the laws restricting these behaviors, and imposing these big government limits were based upon a few zealots' religious viewpoints. Much like the opposition to gay marriage is today, and the opposition to interracial marriage and interfaith marriages, and even polygamy and polyandry were years past.

If you really and truly believe that government shouldn't be telling people what to do in their private lives… how can you possibly justify the DOMA?

Actually, killing the innocent is not permitted under Islam any more than it is under Christianity or Judaism. But there's a difference of opinion over who is considered innocent.

Islam, present day, appears to be about where Christianity was 700 years ago. Catholics at that time didn't think killing heretics or non-believers was murder, either.

A number of our Founders were Deists, not Christians.

Man, you really seem to be projecting quite a bit onto me.

Also, the Jewish Disapora began long before Islam was even a glint in anyone's eye, just so you know. My people have been being kicked out a cities for way longer than 1300 years.

Outlawing abortion, on the other hand, forces women into back-alley abortions where potentially everyone is in danger.

Outlawing cocaine also forces people into dangerous situations. You could try to use your argument about forcing women into back-alley abortions, but that could be said about many illegal activities. Bottom line is we both have the right to our own opinion on this issue.

Really? The whole world needs to wait 700 years for a religion to catch up to the rest of the world? 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.

WHEN a terrorist group uses a nuke, will we be allowed to respond?

I know, and Thomas Jefferson was most likely an Atheist, but those points do not resonate at all with this crowd.

You mean

“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. “?

I assume you're referring to the use of “in the year of our Lord”. Unfortunately, that is also, literally, meaningless to your argument. There was literally no other convention for dating things — all that means is that Western European culture had been primarily Christian for over a thousand years – a point that I would not dispute.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man.” –Thomas Jefferson

Writing in 1803 to the Universalist physician Benjamin Rush, Jefferson wrote, “To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus 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; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.”

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” – Thomas Jefferson from “A Summary View of the Rights of British America” – 1774

Funny that doesn't read like the writings of an atheist or a deist.

Great example of an education being no indication of intelligence.

Danny, Danny… shootin' blanks is fine for the movies. But you know better than to post “noise” like this.

FACT: “Christianity” (put in quotes because there can be/is a HELL of a big difference between the King… and many of those who claim kinship) landed 'officially' (there are legends and anecdotal evidence of it arriving much sooner, through individuals spreading out from the Silk Road) in… are you ready?

1624

FACT: There are over 1 MILLION 'christians' in Taiwan currently… attending 50 Protestant denominations, and the Catholic view of things.

CM Sackett

Mornin' Danny,

“…purely intellectual question” eh?

Alright then, here's your purely HISTORICAL answer:

Mohammad 'started' his 'religion' with violence (and even according to him/historical record, it had NOTHING to do with any 'oppression' from christians, or anyone else. IT BEGAN AS IT EXISTS TODAY, THE GATHERING AND INCREASE OF POWER OVER ALL)… it progressed (in its earliest years) through violence… and has NEVER had a period of SELF-INDUCED secession of hostility, let alone ANY renunciation of VIOLENCE as a basic tenet of faith.

Here is a very quick overview of the early years:

http://www.truthnet.org/islam/whatisislam.html

EVERY single date, name and source event mentioned is EASILY verified through a number of sources.

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.

glad to see that you have some interesting input

“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?

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.

“Back in the days before the Reformation, Christians believed their bible was the inspired word of God…”

Christians… still do.

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.”

“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.

Uh…..ok.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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 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.

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

You're confusing Christians with church 'goers'.

That's alright… I did the same thing for too many years.

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.

” 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.

“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

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.

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.

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.

Or did Jewish people bring about the attacks from the Catholics through some kind of “Jewish Jihad” that nobody's talking about?

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.