[Casual]

You should get to work.

The key words of that article appear in the first line "condemned by the government". Yes we have fanatics in this country trying to warp kid’s minds with this arse gravy in a country of 60 million or more people it’s a statistical impossibility not to, but at least here they’re not government sanctioned. I won’t be worried until the government starts to seriously entertain the prospect of teaching this in UK schools as a fact along side evolution.

Thanks for the link reading that has given me more faith in my government than I’ve had in a long time.

[Snake Logan]

Well if that's the case then you can't blame Muslims for the actions of some Egyptians who flew a couple of planes into the WTC.

Well actually 15 of them were Saudi Arabian, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese and only one was Egyptian.

Thank you for saying that, because a lot of people seem to think that Muslims have some sort of terrorist hive mind. Of course, if what you meant was that when Christians pray they are Christians, but when they lynch niggers they're Americans, then you have what we call a selective or double standard.

If you are saying that the bible teaches to lynch black people then I am going to have to ask you to point out the passage.

You missed or ignored my main point of course which was that it was Christian values and the hegemony of a Christian Western World that created the scenario that was the American South. It was the "White Man's Burden" that fueled the slave trade, and that along with the American notion of "Manifest Destiny" were Christian arguments.

‘White man’s burden’ has nothing to do with Christianity. Before Christianity there was this thing called Rome which sought to colonize and make the savages civil, this despite Rome being a pagan country for most of its existence. The Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the and many other Empires were the same way. Believing that their way was best.

Regardless of the status of blacks in other countries (and at about the time I was talking about, blacks had just gotten over being largely persecuted by the Nazi government and police of one of those countries you mentioned.

I see, so you decide that a government that locked up many Christians who protested against the policy of the Nazis as Christian. Bravo.

Guess which one?), the status of Blacks in the US was a carryover from the days of Slavery and the Civil War, a war where both sides marched to hymns praising God. Where you get that "blacks and other minorities" have always had it great "most anywhere" in the world apart from the US I don't know. So how about I won't say that racism is a Christian problem if you don't try to claim it's an exclusively American problem, ok?

I could have sworn we were talking about the 1960s and not the 1860s. If you are saying the several large European nations as well as America had racist policies, except of course for northern America, then I would have to agree.

There's nowhere to go with your idea that my Jewish and Muslim friends have been "Westernized." Is "Western" the term you use to mean those things you don't take exception to, and "foreign" is everything else? One gal I was referring to grew up in Syria and has relatives she regularly visits in Saudi Arabia. She's well read and like movies, and she speaks English with some accent, but she doesn't eat hamburgers or worship Jesus (a Middle Eastern deity). Do you mean she's "Western" because she doesn't fit a stereotype you hold of the radical terrorist? Or do simply mean that moderation in religious ritual and worship is unique to the West? I'm confused, but my first guess is you should travel more.

No, westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend. If you are two or more of the things mentioned above then you are a westerner.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 23 January 2008 - 08:23 AM

[Slade]

Snake: How much work on your part does it take to deliberately misinterpret or ignore every point and its context in your every post? It seems to me that it's much more difficult and futile than just admitting that all of your arguments are fallicious at best, or taking the time to actually know what you're talking about.

I've said this a million times, so why not once more: A religion does not make someone radical. It takes oppressive living conditions. The religion just tends to make a nice catalyst/excuse for it. Jordan, I'm sure many Muslims already say that the parts of the Koran that endorse violence are silly/archaic, and when Muslim governments lose their religious sway and their leaders stop fueling the fires of hatred, that number will increase, just like with any other religion.

[Snake Logan]

Snake: How much work on your part does it take to deliberately misinterpret or ignore every point and its context in your every post? It seems to me that it's much more difficult and futile than just admitting that all of your arguments are fallicious at best, or taking the time to actually know what you're talking about.

No personal attacks, Slade. If you cant win against me in a debate then step aside and let the big boys talk.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 23 January 2008 - 12:43 PM

[jeremy]

How come people always apologise for muslim warmongering by reference to the crusades, spanish inquisition and the colonialisation of the middle east?
In the movie which this thread is about, it is clearly and correctly stated that these actions by christians have to be viewed as a RESPONSE to the ottoman jihad aggression of the middle ages all the way up to the attack on the "gates of Vienna" on the eleventh september of 1683.

Just like in the 2. world war it is common practice to rule the attacking nation for a while, after having defeated its aggression. Both as compensation, and as a lesson for the future.

btw it seems as if horstkrautwurst has been busy setting up a whole channel on stage6.
Not bad at all.

http://www.stage6.co...l-documentation

[Spoon Poetic]

Ignoring Snake's above post; Slade, I have a question for you.

Oppressive living conditions make radicals? Hmm... Then what about radical Christians? Those guys aren't usually very oppressed. I don't really think that oppressive living conditions makes for a radical/extremist. It could be one reason in many cases, but there are also many, many instances where someone gets really excited and gung-ho about their religion (and/or cult) and become a radical/extremist even if they have the best life in the world.

Also, not that it's necessarily wrong, but "I'm sure many Muslims already say..." is not a good argument. You're assuming, there, and it's obvious.

However... Here's a piece of a speech made by a Muslim woman, about her book, and it gets the point across that Slade's trying to make as well as provides the author's idea for the reason the moderate Muslims aren't yet taking a stand against the jihadists:

We Muslims - even here in the West – are routinely raised to believe that because the Koran comes after the Torah and the Bible, historically and chronologically, it is the final, and therefore perfect, manifesto of God’s will, not given to the kinds of ambiguities and inconsistencies and outright contradictions – and God forbid, human editing – like all of those other sacred texts. No. Even moderate Muslims believe as an article of faith that the Koran is not like any other sacred text. It is, if I could put it this way, GOD 3.0, and none shall come after it.

Now this is a supremacy complex.

And, it’s a supremacy complex that I argue in my book is dangerous. Why dangerous?

Not because I believe that moderates will suddenly become Jihadists and begin hurling bombs at the so-called Infidels – better duck, I might be one of them, right? – I’m not suggesting that at all, I’m suggesting that this supremacy complex is dangerous because when abuse happens under the banner of Islam – as is the case in too many parts of the world today – most Muslims today, even those of us with fancy titles and formal education, PhDs in engineering and medicine: most Muslims today do not yet know how to debate or dissent with the Jihadists. And it’s not because we’re stupid and it’s not because we don’t wish to. First and foremost, it’s because we have not yet been introduced to the possibility of asking questions about our supposedly perfect Holy Book.

The same, I will humbly submit to all of you, cannot be said today for moderate Christians and Jews.

And this, I think, is the key to understanding why there has been such a thundering silence among moderate Muslims in the face of Islam’s folly. You see, the Jihadists are so adroit at quoting from the Koran to support their Jihads, and because the rest of us have been led to believe that questioning the Koran is off-limits, we’re left with the feeling that questioning – openly questioning – the Koran of the Jihadists, is tantamount to questioning the Koran itself. And that’s supposed to be a no-no.

---http://faith-politics-humanrights.org/irshadspeaks.asp

She goes on to say that it shouldn't be a "no-no," and that there is a proponent of Islam that actually encourages independent thinking, and therein lies the authority to question the violent, intolerant teachings of the Koran. There's also a lot of other things addressed in there, such as homosexuality. It's an interesting read, I recommend it.

Remember that Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity. The "rules" of Christianity were completely unquestioned for centuries. In fact, the people in power made sure the common man couldn't read so that whatever was in the Bible was kept more or less to the privileged, and the common man would be made to believe whatever his religious elders said. It's only been in the last century that people have been raising questions against the age-old Christian beliefs, like, "Are maybe black people not the cursed descendants of Cain, after all, and should be treated equally to us?" and even, "Could homosexuality and Christianity be compatible?" And even though the majority of the Christian population would answer "no" to the latter question, asking that question is not going to warrant an automatic banishment to hell, or any other legally sanctioned punishment. Questioning the Bible used to be a crime like murder or incest in the eyes of, well, pretty much everyone. But Muslims don't really have this luxury yet. So, if a Muslim is not following the Koran as literally as the radicals, they're gonna be pretty quiet about it.

That makes it easy for the media and war-mongers to really spin it and implant that fear of Islam into people, because it's easy to show people the radical Muslims, but keep the actual majority - moderate, nonviolent Muslims - out of sight.

[Casual]

Understand that this post is aimed at radicals I don’t generalise.

Ok so we've established that there’s now a 500 year time limit on radical Islam being allowed to act as archaic as they like because that’s how long it took the Christians to wise up. But what happens if in 500 years they're still right about everything and have the privilege to kill the infidels because "god said so". I'm sorry but I don’t buy into that. How about they set an example and introduce reform BEFORE the Christians did.

[Snake Logan]

She goes on to say that it shouldn't be a "no-no," and that there is a proponent of Islam that actually encourages independent thinking, and therein lies the authority to question the violent, intolerant teachings of the Koran. There's also a lot of other things addressed in there, such as homosexuality. It's an interesting read, I recommend it.

Islam is love and peace and encourages independent thought. Sounds like propaganda to me. Have you read the Koran? I have some links you should visit.

http://formermuslims.com/forum/

http://answering-isl...nies/index.html

Remember that Islam is about 500 years behind Christianity. The "rules" of Christianity were completely unquestioned for centuries. In fact, the people in power made sure the common man couldn't read so that whatever was in the Bible was kept more or less to the privileged, and the common man would be made to believe whatever his religious elders said. It's only been in the last century that people have been raising questions against the age-old Christian beliefs, like, "Are maybe black people not the cursed descendants of Cain, after all, and should be treated equally to us?" and even, "Could homosexuality and Christianity be compatible?" And even though the majority of the Christian population would answer "no" to the latter question, asking that question is not going to warrant an automatic banishment to hell, or any other legally sanctioned punishment. Questioning the Bible used to be a crime like murder or incest in the eyes of, well, pretty much everyone. But Muslims don't really have this luxury yet. So, if a Muslim is not following the Koran as literally as the radicals, they're gonna be pretty quiet about it.

That’s exactly what I said.

I have a theory. Since Islam was made 500 years after Christianity, Islam is in the same phrase Christianity was 500 years ago. I wouldn’t worry about it, in another 500 years Islam will also become liberalized. I think the various pagan religions also went through phases like this.

That makes it easy for the media and war-mongers to really spin it and implant that fear of Islam into people, because it's easy to show people the radical Muslims, but keep the actual majority - moderate, nonviolent Muslims - out of sight.

Since Muslims are not a majority here in Australia, I do not fear Islam. I don’t even fear being a victim of a terrorist strike, if that is what you are implying, since the odds of me being caught in one are pretty slim.

Understand that this post is aimed at radicals I don’t generalise.

Ok so we've established that there’s now a 500 year time limit on radical Islam being allowed to act as archaic as they like because that’s how long it took the Christians to wise up. But what happens if in 500 years they're still right about everything and have the privilege to kill the infidels because "god said so". I'm sorry but I don’t buy into that. How about they set an example and introduce reform BEFORE the Christians did.

They need to become less conservative in their own rite otherwise whatever reforms come into effect will be superficial and temporary.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 23 January 2008 - 02:26 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

Wow, you really missed my point, Snake. Yes, I've read the Koran. I never said that the Koran didn't have some bad bits in it. In fact, I stated that there were violent, intolerant parts of the Koran. That article was saying that there are those parts of the Koran. HOWEVER, like the Christians questioning and then leaving out the violent/intolerant bits of the Bible, the Muslims should be able to question those parts of the Koran. They don't, however, for their fear of backlash from such an action (See: questioning the Bible in any century before the last. That's a comparison.)

As far as Casual's post, yes, I agree that it would be nice for Islam to step it up and get to the part where everybody's all love and tolerance, and I wasn't arguing that the violent radical Muslims should be excused from their actions. However, when people argue that Christianity is, was, and ever will be better than Islam, that's where the 500-years-behind thing comes in. To make a more accurate comparison of the two religions, and putting it into better perspective.

[J m HofMarN]

Sorry for being out of such a good debate so long. Vacation and whatnot. Right then...

No personal attacks, Slade. If you cant win against me in a debate then step aside and let the big boys talk.

Thats it Snake you tell him. Why moderators have the idea that they can speak in forums they moderate I have no idea.

Oppressive living conditions make radicals? Hmm... Then what about radical Christians? Those guys aren't usually very oppressed.

The hillbillies who hate blacks, fags, etc come from areas with high poverty and very poor education. Alabamas schools have consistently been rated worst in the nation with Mississippi and other southern states not far behind. Add to this the generationally inherited hatred from reconstruction days when they felt pretty damned oppressed and you have kids who grow up with this bullshit spewed on them and haven't got an adequate education to pull the wool from their eyes.

On the Quran:

Ive read it as well. Not a bad book really. Islam gets a lot of flack for saying you can fight to protect your religion, convert others to your religion, and that dying in service of god makes you super keen. Of course these are tenants of probably every religion but Islam is mean anyhow. If youre going to try to use the quran dont get stuff thats been taken out of context from anti-islamic sites. Go to the actual book and get the verse before and after along with the quote you want to use.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 23 January 2008 - 03:36 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

Jm, there are a lot of other "radical Christians" than the ones you describe. Christian fundamentalists come from all backgrounds.

Also, I don't take verses of the Koran out of context and there are still some violent passages. Just like the Bible. But yes, there are lots of instances where people take stuff out of context and make it sound hugely worse than it is... Just like the Bible.

[Casual]

My point is even if it is 500 years younger than Christianity its still 1500 years old! Is that not enough time to make some reform? It only takes one generation to come to their senses. But the point is they may well never change because as the article you posted points out Islam is even more resistant to change than other religions, questioning the Koran is a complete no-no.

[J m HofMarN]

Spoon- I was addressing that to the person posting the links to anti islamic websites.

Casual- Islam is resistant to change because change is being shoved down Islams throat. Bush tells them they must democratize. They do so and elect an Islamic government. Bush creates an international blockade because they elected the wrong leaders. Islam will change when there is a stable and open environment for it to do so. When people can turn from watching for US bombers to watching their own clerics and figuring out what can be improved.

[Jordan]

stop pointing out how gay chritians and their faith are, stick to Islam. try defend all the hatefilled passages on their own merits, not "oh gee this is evil but those christians sure are fags"

[civilian_number_two]

Well actually 15 of them were Saudi Arabian, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese and only one was Egyptian.

That was a trick, Snake, but an obvious one so I don't apologise. Bush and his military leaders concluded from the attack on the WTC that they should invade Afghanistan to chase down an invisible leader who was not there and is probably already dead. Why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia? The answer is immaterial; they were able to sell that invasion idea to Congress and to the American people because the Christians of the US had no trouble believing that it was a Muslim attack, not a political one, that Muslims head an international terrorist conspiracy, and that we should strike at Muslim governments wherever we see them, except not in Saudi Arabia, under the perpetual wisdom of our Lord the President of the United States, so help us God.

If you are saying that the bible teaches to lynch black people then I am going to have to ask you to point out the passage.

No, I have to ask you to find the passage for me. All I said was that White Christian trumped up charges in order to hate and kill blacks for decades. I don't think it was their Bible that told them to do it. I don't think the Bible has much to do with Christianity; I don't think the Koran has much to do with Islam. Religions aren't about their reading materials, they are about the people of the religion and what they are willing to do.

‘White man’s burden’ has nothing to do with Christianity. Before Christianity there was this thing called Rome which sought to colonize and make the savages civil, this despite Rome being a pagan country for most of its existence. The Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the and many other Empires were the same way. Believing that their way was best.

The Romans have nothing to do with manufacturing the phrase "White Man's Burden. The Romans, for the record, conquered other nations so that they could bring back treasures and slaves. The generals liked the conquests because they would be rewarded with week-long parades of drinking and sex. But back to the phrase "White Man's Burden" and its counterpart "Manifest Destiny," these are distinctly Christian arguments for supporting conquest and genocide. They have nothing to do with centuries of nations warring against one another; they are entirely about selling that culture of theft and conquest (and a little genocide) to a Christian people (who ate it up with relish).

You can't say "Islamic governments are all about oppression and destruction of their enemies because of their religion, but Western governments that preach Christianity only attack foreign countries because that's what the Romans did." It's a double standard, and you sound like a nutter when you do it. The people are sold the idea that the Muslims are out to get them, and they support perpetual warfare on the grounds of religious superstition. The people have occasional acts of desperate terrorism to convince them that their leaders are right. For their part, the terrorists are sold the same idea, and they have their own simple physical reasons, bombings and killings and disappearances and whatnot.

I see, so you decide that a government that locked up many Christians who protested against the policy of the Nazis as Christian. Bravo.

The government and the people who elected them were Christian. So some people who disagreed with them were also Christian; big deal. There was no organised Christian resistance (caution: this may be a trap). It's not exactly the first time that Christians have disagred with one another, or that a Christian government has used Christian soldiers to round up rival Christians and to charge them with dissention. Besides, I didn't bring up Germany. You did when you said that minorities had it great there in 50s. Don't cry foul when I mention that in the 40s the army executed minorities from time to time. You can read about it. The status of minorities there in the 50s was NOT giggles and suncream.

I could have sworn we were talking about the 1960s and not the 1860s. If you are saying the several large European nations as well as America had racist policies, except of course for northern America, then I would have to agree.

I was talking about the 1960s, when white people had to fight other white people to allow black people the right to vote for government in the country they were born in. The Christian attutude that blacks were inferior was a carryover from the Civil War, a war in which armies of both sides sang hyms while they marched. It took some arguing to convince some of the Christians that the other Christians might have had a point.

No, westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend. If you are two or more of the things mentioned above then you are a westerner.

Now I'm sure you're joking. You say that the friend I was mentioning, if she isn't all "Allah Akbar" is Westernised. I ask you what that means and you say that she is Westernised if she is self-loathig and a petty follower of contemporary trends. Ok. She isn't. She is a very happy person with no apparent trendiness and no self-loathing. So I supose she isn't "Westernised." Now, can you explain to me how she is Muslim and she's not all crazy to kill the infidels? Because you're having a hard time selling that to me, and now you can't even justify it by saying she's "Westernised." What you're selling rather easily is that you are yourself a Christian and that you have bought the propaganda that wars in the Middle East are religious, not political, that there is an International Jewish Communist Muslim conspiracy of terror and that we need to get them before they get us.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 23 January 2008 - 08:45 PM