[lil'babykitten]

theo is right about the increasing wave of intolerance in Europe. But, it's not just happening in Europe, it's on the increase everywhere. It is disturbing too.

Rooneyx - I keep letting your uninformed comments relating to Islam slip. Not this time. Islamic Fundamentalist is an extreme interpretation of Islam and a distorted one at that.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by Logic:
thanks

but you forgot the first question

If we take the Quran, or the Bible or Torah for that matter, as-is and adhering to a strict literary interpretation, we'd all be insane, extremists and wacko religious idealogues.

[FeLiZeCaT]

I think the whole issue is absolutely fairy dust, and nothing else. Don't get me wrong: I certainly do not approve antisemitism or discriminations. But to discuss this as specifically as this is done here, I wonder if we are not missing the whole picture...

I think the solution, highly utopist, granted, is to stop believing those lines these papers called maps have any real meaning. Those that are called "countries".

These lines make me think more and more that human beings are being parked as cattle for the purpose of benefitting some oppressing superstructure

They being given a tag so they know where they belong. Sometimes they are provided with a belief so they can give meaning to their situation.
They are fed and "cared for" as long as they are useful for that superstructure.

When the profits are threathened, we see some of that cattle sacrificed for a "higher purpose".

To ensure that cattle does not mix (and lose some stock from getting "good" ideas about their situation), you make sure that differences are emphasized (some cattle is better than other or some cattle is better at some tasks compared to others). Some of those differences are so emphasized that confrontation is encouraged and sustained to better have control. Sometimes there is devastation.

While some cattle is busy tackling their differences, something else is happening in their back. Sometimes some people are just waiting to pick up the pieces or occupy the place after that confrontation.

Sometimes they come in as their saviors: "See? You needed us! We told you so!"

And then they charge you for the rescue.

Who is benefiting from the stimulation of those confrontations? Who is benefiting from the stimulation of differences?

Maybe that Evil we look everywhere around us is in fact inside of ourselves? Maybe we feel so hopelessly powerless at times that we have to subdue and oppress wherever we can...

Let's look at a family as an atom of human relationships.

The exercise of power starts often at work (more than 99% of any population is following orders). How often we disagree to follow orders but have to comply? My bet is about 99% of the time. But reasoned the whole thing because if we say "no", if we oppose, we may lose our job.

Now, everyone as a sense of accomplishment right? Everyone needs to achieve something, right? But you cannot accomplish something if you are not provided an opportunity to do so. We all need some power. The power to prove to the world (and ourselves) that we have to accomplish something.

Now when we do not have these opportunities, what can we do? We apply it wherever we can; often we brake something, yell at someone (whom is either not expecting it or could not be able of some self-defense). We may try elsewhere to get another job, etc. but iut is still no guarantee we will do so and not have to sacrifice some of our self-esteem.

Jews are easy to target because they were so often oppressed; they now carry the tag "victim" and it is easy for non-Jewish to revert from protector to oppressor if the power we have is not secure. The same goes to women; they were made symbols of purity as well as they were exploited for sex or to perpetuate a line for some powerful lord. Today is not that different (although I like to think women are more independant and men more respectful) and there is still a lot to do because there are still a lot of men who think themselves as lords.

When we seek justice for a group of oppressed people, I like to think that, like some people outside of America did after 9/11: "Today I am an American".

Now how about "Today I am :

defenseless child, woman, Jew, Iraqi, Palestinian, Poor, etc.

After some practice, maybe our frontiers and differences will not be so obvious...

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
If we take the Quran, or the Bible or Torah for that matter, as-is and adhering to a strict literary interpretation, we'd all be insane, extremists and wacko religious idealogues.

How so? Show me at least one example of your great knowledge of the Quran.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

Rooneyx - I keep letting your uninformed comments relating to Islam slip. Not this time. Islamic Fundamentalist is an extreme interpretation of Islam and a distorted one at that.

Dear Kitten, Honest to my heart 80% of my closest friends all my life have been and probably always will be Muslim. They know I don't believe in their religion but that doesn't stop us from being friends because we don't chat religion - we talk about other matters that are more realistic and 'on earth' such as business and how to feed our families.

I have issues with literalism, preaching and spreading a religion no matter what that religion is. I have no issue with people keeping their beliefs to themselves and not involving religion with politics. I am not one bit uninformed about Islam and know the Koran and the Hadiths better than most Muslims do, in a religious, historical and mythological context. I'm sure you wouldn't like to see Christianity preached all over Saudi Arabia? Would you? Neither would I.

The problem with hatred directed against Muslims in Europe is the same as those in Islamic countries where other religions are banned or oppressed or western women have to wear a hijab to go out in public as a sign of respect to that culture. It's the same rule applying to all.

And none of this is my fault, surely.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Dear Kitten, Honest to my heart 80% of my closest friends all my life have been and probably always will be Muslim. They know I don't believe in their religion but that doesn't stop us from being friends because we don't chat religion - we talk about other matters that are more realistic and 'on earth' such as business and how to feed our families.

I have issues with literalism, preaching and spreading a religion no matter what that religion is. I have no issue with people keeping their beliefs to themselves and not involving religion with politics. I am not one bit uninformed about Islam and know the Koran and the Hadiths better than most Muslims do, in a religious, historical and mythological context. I'm sure you wouldn't like to see Christianity preached all over Saudi Arabia? Would you? Neither would I.

The problem with hatred directed against Muslims in Europe is the same as those in Islamic countries where other religions are banned or oppressed or western women have to wear a hijab to go out in public as a sign of respect to that culture. It's the same rule applying to all.

And none of this is my fault, surely.

Well, thanks for the interesting and civil response.

I don't have a problem with people spreading/preaching a religion as long as they are not spewing radical/extremist versions of it, or forcing people to listen. The spreading of radical Islam IMO, is the prevailing problem we have at the moment.

It's intriguing to hear that you have studied Islam in such depth. However sometimes your posts really demonstrate ignorance to me - i'm sorry! perhaps your first posts here, which you have to admit did not go down well with a lot of people not just me, have something to do with it.

Anyway, religion and politics tend not to mix very well. Religion aside, I often agree with your political viewpoint anyway.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Logic:
Do you believe that Icelanders have the right to claim back the land we fled in Scandinavia and Great Britain?

Perhaps Iceland should write a book declaring Scandinavia and Great Britian as their historic birthright?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Perhaps Iceland should write a book declaring Scandinavia and Great Britian as their historic birthright?

I think the old literature of ours does that already. Where do we apply?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Logic:
I think the old literature of ours does that already. Where do we apply?

Step two is to tell the rest of the world that they should feel so guilty for some past injustice to Icelanders that they have no right to criticize anything you do, even if it's not so different from the injustice done to you.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Step two is to tell the rest of the world that they should feel so guilty for some past injustice to Icelanders that they have no right to criticize anything you do, even if it's not so different from the injustice done to you.

That would be the toughest part since we have been "handing our justice" ourselves. Hmmm, but I'm sure I can find something

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
I think the old literature of ours does that already. Where do we apply?

The UN?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Step two is to tell the rest of the world that they should feel so guilty for some past injustice to Icelanders that they have no right to criticize anything you do, even if it's not so different from the injustice done to you.

No...
see, that's what sets WWII completely apart from everywhere else. It IS absolutely different from any atrocity that has taken place, before or since. Where else have people been turned into lampshades and soap? Sure, Saddam gassed the Kurds, but he didn't decorate or clean himself with them. He did, however, follow the mass grave example, which Israel hasn't done.

You must not have been paying attention during history lessons if you've missed this information.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Where else have people been turned into lampshades and soap?

Nowhere. It's the second time you post that today, but that doesn't make it a true historical fact.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Nowhere. It's the second time you post that today, but that doesn't make it a true historical fact.

It's mostly historical fact. I learned a thing or two when coming up with a response for you.

The soap is false. The lampshades, gold fillings pulled from teeth for jewelry, those are true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techn...ndix-5-02.html

The Nazis performed innumerable acts of horror. Acts which, were there not definite and undeniable proof of them, could be dismissed as too unbelievable to be true. The hair of Jewish women was sent back to the Reich for use by the German people. The gold was extracted from the teeth of Jews and sent to German banks to be melted down.

In certain camps, e.g. Buchenwald, there were acts even more macabre. There, the young wife of the commandant used the skin of Jews to make lampshades and other bric-a-brac for her home. The greatest act of horror, of course, was the well-nigh successful plan of the Nazis to eliminate the Jewish people from the face of the European continent.

During the war the Nazis went to great effort to hide their actions from the public. They used all sorts of euphemisms to camouflage their actions in official reports: "eliminated," "finished off," "subject to special treatment," and "solution of the Jewish question." It would have been entirely at odds with their policy of subterfuge for them to have printed the abbreviation of "Pure Jewish Fat" on bars of soap that were distributed to the population of the Reich and Reich-occupied countries.

The necessity for exactitude when dealing with the horrors of the war becomes even more pressing today when there are those groups that would have us believe that the Holocaust is a "hoax."

Apologies for the earlier inaccuracy.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by theolein:
QED

Are you trying to prove something?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
theo is right about the increasing wave of intolerance in Europe. But, it's not just happening in Europe, it's on the increase everywhere. It is disturbing too.

Rooneyx - I keep letting your uninformed comments relating to Islam slip. Not this time. Islamic Fundamentalist is an extreme interpretation of Islam and a distorted one at that.

Increasing intolerance? I think not ms kitten.

A) Intolerance indicates that we 'tolerate' each other. We live and accept each other, we don't need to tolerate each other. However describing what you are feeling with the word intolerance implies that you'll never accept others for what they are, but you could tolerate them. That is racism.

B) Racism is not on the increase in Europe. Pick any year and compare it with today. More racism or less racism? How does 1943 compare to today? More or less? How about the 80s? More or less?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Apologies for the earlier inaccuracy.

No problem really. The lampshade history is horrifying, but being a single occurrence (and not at all unique in its kind) it shouldn't be put in an historical context.

As the author you quoted says, exactitude is a necessity. It's bad enough that so many people in this thread demonstrated a very superficial, myths-ridden knowledge of the holocaust; I would prefer to see the nazis condemned for the atrocities they really committed, and the scale at which they were executed.

IMO, ignorance feeds xenophobia and anti-semitism on the long run; spreading knowledge is the best pre-emption against such social diseases.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
If we take the Quran, or the Bible or Torah for that matter, as-is and adhering to a strict literary interpretation, we'd all be insane, extremists and wacko religious idealogues.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
If we take the Quran, or the Bible or Torah for that matter, as-is and adhering to a strict literary interpretation, we'd all be insane, extremists and wacko religious idealogues.

That goes to show your ignorance. I'm not surprised.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No...
see, that's what sets WWII completely apart from everywhere else. It IS absolutely different from any atrocity that has taken place, before or since. Where else have people been turned into lampshades and soap?

Were those atrocities done from the start or did the Nazi regime build itself up to them? While Saddam didn't come close to those atrocities, one of the arguements for stopping him was to do so before he did.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well, thanks for the interesting and civil response.

I don't have a problem with people spreading/preaching a religion as long as they are not spewing radical/extremist versions of it, or forcing people to listen. The spreading of radical Islam IMO, is the prevailing problem we have at the moment.

Here's another problem I have, or something that troubles me. You might try to spread the word of your religion for purely good reasons, or just want to share some spirituality with others. You might truly believe you are doing a noble deed and that your spiritual interpretation will make others better. You might acquire converts who share your outlook and spirituality. They might pass it on to their children too.

Now how can you guarantee that somewhere down the line someone won't become an extremist? Say you share your religious beliefs with your children hoping it will make them better people. Can you guarantee that your grandchildren won't have a fanatical view of things? Many people who preach their religions don't take into account what will happen down the line or after they die.

So there's only one thing I religiously believe in - that people should keep their religious beliefs to themselves. Don't all paths lead to God if all things come from and go to God anyway?

This doesn't apply to Islam alone either. Islam has mostly treated conquered peoples better than Christianity did. But there have even been Buddhist fundamentalists who have oppressed populations in the past (the current Dalai Lama is probably the first one not to have and that's because he's not head of a state) so anything is possible. You might not like religion and politics mixing but you can't guarantee that everyone you share your beliefs with will be the same.

My point is are we alive just to serve our own egos and beliefs or to make things better for future generations?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by theolein:
I am really reluctant to get involved in a thread started by the lunatic claiming that Steve Jobs should be checked out for being a terrorist because he has middle eastern roots. If that isn't anti-semitic and clearly similar in approach to what the nazis did, then I just don't know anymore.

In plain text: dhinkel - you are a Nazi in your attitudes. Sieg Heil.

That said, it is obvious that this thread would devolve into the usual America-Europe trashing, one-upping and moral accusations that are part and parcel of communication between the American right and the European left.

Fact is, that despite the fact that I denied it vehemtly in previous times, I do see a trend across most of Europe with regards to rising intolerance of foreigners in general and muslims in particular. Not only that but as Developer said in his post, it would be ridiculous to deny that there are active neo-nazi organisations in Europe. I read the story on the BBC and was quite shocked. The organisation sounds very much like a neo-nazi brainwashing center and I am appalled that the German authorities didn't bother to investigate it properly.

I am personally worried by the wave of intolerance washing over Europe. The French headscarf ban, although theoretically applying to all religious symbolism in schools, is a worrying thing. The fact that other countries, such as Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Holland, are also considering such laws is especially worrying. I think that it is a backlash against years of enforced legal political multiculturalism more than anything else, but it also shows that Europeans are less tolerant of customs that diverge from the norm than they used to be. It is also probably a reaction to the wave of terrorism that has been happening over recent years, and Muslims are obviously being targeted for their insularity and general failure to integrate more in European society.

It is bad. There is no denying it. Repression will not solve the problems of social integration.

I am not going to go into much detail about the US here because there is obviously a backlash against Muslims there as well. One only has to look at board members such as deadboy and Zimphire to see it.

The question, applying to both Europe and the USA as to whether Jews AND Muslims are more loyal to their religions (and, as an extension to israel and Muslim countries) than to their countries of domicile is a valid, but dangerous one. The tendency is to start witch hunts, such as more extreme lunatic fringe people, such as dhinkel, are wont to do. It has the dangerous element of degenerating into blatant nazi like persecution if left unchecked. The USA's laws about registration of people from Muslim countries and the European religious symbolism laws are oppressive and will not solve any real problems.

The validity of the question, however, is real, in that there are certainly both Jews and Muslims who feel more attached to their respective religions and countries than they do to the US or Europe, and, ironically, oppression will only make this stronger. The fact that there is a Jew in jail in the US for having passed secrets to Israel and Muslims in jail in the US and Europe for Al-Qaeda affiliation only reinforces doubts about the the loyalty of members of both religions.

But it is extremely dangerous for society in general for pursue such doubts because of the mob tendency to start looking for someone to lynch, so to speak.

I think the solution is talking to one another and attempting to arrive at compromise solutions. sadly, however, there are less people in todays polarised world who are willing to compromise.

Nomination for post of the week.

I'm of the strong belief that a majority of these "war on terror" tactics are doing nothing but fueling outlashes like this.

FACT is that we are a global community. If we are going to continue to see boundries, and create new ones (race, religion, political, sexual...), get used to life as it is.

Regarding that relious symbol ban... I think enough is enough. It crosses the line a little IMHO. I see the argument, and respect it. But in my personal opinion, I can't see how any harm comes from a religous article of clothing, the ones required by religions are rather conservative. They aren't "Believe in Jesus or go to hell" T-Shirts. They are all rather conservative symbols. Nothing anyone can legitimately say they are "offended" by.


It's really quite pathetic that people kill based on stupid things like religion, sex, race, sexual orientation... and the millions of other *excuses*.

It gives a bad name to a large group of people. Are all anti-war German" people murderer's? By definition of the name, obviously not. I'd bet just about all who would fall into that group believe the complete opposite of those responsible.

Yet another example of the cycle of hate. This now creates more hatred against the German's. Bring about another crime, which will of course be retaliated.


Sadly, it's not that they go after the person who committed the offense before (if there even was an offense)... it's just a random person of the same race/sex/faith/whatever as whom they look for.


It seems every group feels good having some other person/group to lynch, assault, and abuse. Makes them feel better, superior, and in control.

Sad.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
If we take the Quran, or the Bible or Torah for that matter, as-is and adhering to a strict literary interpretation, we'd all be insane, extremists and wacko religious idealogues.

If your an extremist, who believes a document translated an amount of times not yet clearly understood, by those with obvious reason to slant it a bit (all known translations were commisioned by kings or other political leaders).

If you look at the *core* teachings of all of these documents, they teach tolerance, understanding, and peace. The complete opposite of what most people practice.

The Christian Bible puts most of it's emphasis in the new testament on forgiveness and tolerance.

Is that what the majority of Christians try most to follow? Of course not. They go to Church every sunday, because they think it looks good. They go to Church functions to "show their face", then sneak out a little early to go home and watch the football game.


A true Christian would consider a man donating his spare change every week to the poor, working to support his family, and spending his free time raising his kids a much more Christ like person.


But religion over the years has morphed. It's not always about the teachings. It's about the appearance.

Does a church need to have pure gold candle holders to be closer to God? Or would an old wine glass do just as well?

Jesus didn't teach that we must fundraise to buy golden objects for a church. But churches do this all the time.


I'm of the belief that the point of the bible is not about gold candle holders, the crusades, converting the new world to christianity, or any of that other "garbage".

IMHO, it's about tolerance, understanding, and peace. The entire point of the Bible was to pass off those lessons.

If you don't follow the core teaching of the church... what's the point?

In my personal opinion, it's worshoping a false idol. Yourself. Doing things to look good in the eyes of others, and using religion to pass of your person convictions upon others.

Note I point to christianity quite a bit, but it's all religions really. It's widespread across all faiths.

Many forget Jesus forgave his murder's, and those who wanted him crucified and releasing Barbaras rather than him while dying. THAT is Jesus. Calling the newspapers because you and 3 others from the church are going to give a can of soup to the homless shelter is not.

There's a real difference in someone who is religious, and someone who takes advantage of religion.

Sadly, they start to blur, and it's quite upsetting.

[Developer]

Back on topic for a moment, was that LaRouche candidating for for being US president?

http://larouchein2004.net/pages/othe...14schiller.htm

I tried to fiend more information about who LaRouche and the Schiller Institute really are, but couldn't find anything really conclusive. Does anybody know who he is?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Developer:
Back on topic for a moment, was that LaRouche candidating for for being US president?

http://larouchein2004.net/pages/othe...14schiller.htm

I tried to fiend mor information about who LaRouche and the Schiller Institute really are, but couldn't find anything really conclusive. Does anybody know who he is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc1.html
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...yndon_LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche started as a sectarian leftist and self-styled intellectual in the late 1960s. By 1973 cadres from his National Caucus of Labor Committees launched "Operation Mop Up" and began beating up rival leftist groups. Within several years the NCLC stepped over that thin line between sectarian leftism and the right wing, and was cooperating with the Ku Klux Klan, Liberty Lobby, and law enforcement officials. In the early Reagan years, LaRouche's anti-Sovietism found expression through his lobbying on behalf of Star Wars and his access to U.S. intelligence and other officials. His publications such as Executive Intelligence Review are taken seriously by journalists and investigators because of their demonstrated access to occasional inside information. At the same time, LaRouche's people are understandably regarded with a certain amount of healthy suspicion.

During the 2004 Democratic primary, LaRouche supporters continually attempted to disrupt public gatherings by using coordinated verbal and sometimes physical assaults. These fascist tendencies, modeled after Hitler's effective rise to power, have been criticized by Democrats and the press. [1]

LaRouchian political theory is a mixture of Kant, anti-Semitism, and paranoic tirades against everything from British empiricism to Oliver North. It is something of a mystery how LaRouche funds his organization, which is also active in Germany. He was convicted in 1988 of conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion (charges that grew out of his organization's sleazy fund-raising practices), and is serving a 15-year sentence. One suspects, however, that this clue provides a partial answer at best.

In the LaRouchite worldview, the oligarchic families of Great Britain are the font of all world evil. Over the years LaRouchite literature has maintained that political leadership in Great Britain is really controlled by banking families, especially Jewish banking families such as the Rothschilds, a standard antisemitic. While Jewish members of the LaRouche organization claim their mere presence is evidence that the organization cannot be antisemitic, this argument has not intellectual validity and falls in the face of substantial evidence that while coded, LaRouche philosophy is based on an antisemitic conspiracist theory.

The anti-Semitism of the LaRouchite organization is often well-hidden through convoluted conspiracist theories and obscure terminology, but despite its coded nature, a thorough reading of the LaRouchite literature reveals the central role a global and age-old conspriacy of "bad" Jews play in the LaRouchite worldview. LaRouche followers and representatives of the Nation of Islam have joined to present anti-Semitic public presentation describing an alleged conspiracy of Freemasons and the B"nai B"Rith to create and control the Ku Klux Klan. The LaRouche conspiracy theory links together Freemasons, the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia in a conspiracy against Christian economics and science.

For LaRouche the conspiracy starts with Jews in Babylon.

"Before Christianity, there were established some very vicious Oriental cults in the area near Babylon. These cults led to the various manifestations of a particular form of cult called Manichaenism.The cult was spread by Venetian bankers...This pseudo- alchemic cult later called Freemasonic."

LaRouche and his minions elaborate on the conspiracy theory by tracing its alleged roots backwards through history. "The evidence assembled from best sources also proves conclusively that all U.S. professional anthropology, as it is presently constituted, is an irreparable and willful hoax."

"Most of the so-called primitive cultures are permeated with philological and other characteristics which are degeneracies a case of massive degeneration of these peoples from and earlier, higher level of cultural existence."

"The conquest of advanced maritime-citybuilder cultures by backward "hordes" of relatively bestialized, more primitive, rural-pastoral people tended to occur whenever catastrophes weakened the maritime-littoral culture."

An ad in one magazine, claimed:

"The laws of Moses and related materials in the Old Testament are not part of Israelite religious tradition, but the product of international counterinsurgency operations in sixth and fifth century BC Babylon."

Now according to LaRouche, one of the vicious cults that came out of Babylon was modern Judaism:

"Although A.D. Judaism is an outgrowth of the development of Christianity there was a preceding Hebrew faith OF SORTS [emphasis in the original].The earlier, Hebrew doctrine is itself a syncretic hodge-podge of chiefly Mesopotamian legends. [Rabbi] Ezra"s Persian version of Hebrewism was, in turn, significantly influenced by an earlier, pre-Pentateuch version created in conformity with Babylonian edicts."

"From Ezra onwards, and even before, Hebrewism was an assimilationist doctrine developed to provide special juridical status (and ideological self-image) for a caste of merchant-userers within a pre-capitalist society."

"Judaism is not a true religion, but only a half-religion, a curious appendage and sub-species of Christianity." "Judaism is ideological abstraction of the secular life of Christianity's Jew, the Roman merchant-userer who had not yet evolved to the state of Papal enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not developed a Christian conscience."

"Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. In short, a self- sustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist. As for Jewish culture otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim."

The LaRouche discourse above is designed to suggest that Jews are a "caste of merchant-userers" who have not yet developed a whole "Christian conscience" through "Papal enlightenment."

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Simey answered this one a few weeks ago. Questioning a person's loyalty because of their religion is offensive.

I disagree with this. Not questioning a person's loyalty because of their religion is a stupid, stupid thing and leads to incidents like the one early in the war where a Muslim US soldier hurled a grenade into a tent full of colleagues.

Anybody practising a religion properly should have more loyalty to that religion than their homeland. It's sensible to be wary of their loyalties.

(note: I speak as someone who is way more loyal to my religion than to my country).

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I disagree with this. Not questioning a person's loyalty because of their religion is a stupid, stupid thing and leads to incidents like the one early in the war where a Muslim US soldier hurled a grenade into a tent full of colleagues.

Anybody practising a religion properly should have more loyalty to that religion than their homeland. It's sensible to be wary of their loyalties.

(note: I speak as someone who is way more loyal to my religion than to my country).

I agree. I'm way more loyal to my religion than to my country.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Suddenly, countries becoome less relevant for religious reasons...


Is it not amazing?

(Dance of Joy!)

No disrespect meant here!

Religion provides morality and Ethics.

Countries have policies that vary and are very difficult to control

Religious indoctrination creates a strong locus of control, of morality that I find more reliable than any political plan.

I trust more a religious person than anyone yelling for patriotism.

Now the next thread should be about how can we live together without making those artificial boundaries...

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by Logic:
How so? Show me at least one example of your great knowledge of the Quran.

this is just like the Al Jazeera crap--I won't do your obvious research for you. Pick up the Quran and start reading. Within 40 pages you will come across something that, if interpreted literally, would fit the bill of today's 'wacko extremists', be they Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

It's like asking me to prove that most humans are born with 10 fingers and toes, and then asking me to provide an example! Look around! I'm not here to spoon feed you out of intellectual laziness.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I agree. I'm way more loyal to my religion than to my country.

Does that mean you'd subvert your country's democratic and free traditions to remold it into a theocracy?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
this is just like the Al Jazeera crap--I won't do your obvious research for you. Pick up the Quran and start reading. Within 40 pages you will come across something that, if interpreted literally, would fit the bill of today's 'wacko extremists', be they Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

I VERY strongly suspect that you have never done such a thing, so until you answer the question, you're just talking out your urethra.

-s*

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I VERY strongly suspect that you have never done such a thing, so until you answer the question, you're just talking out your urethra.

-s*

I'm afriad he is right. You can pick up a Torah and find God inciting violence. You can find Jesus inciting violence in the Gospels. You can find clear passages in the Koran inciting violence. These texts were written ina world run by theocracies with tribes and empires facing each other off all the time.

There's no sense in fantasizing and thinking these were all non-literal and and were meant to be interpreted spiritually. That's not the world they lived in, it's the world we live in today to be apologetic about them.

For example, a young impressionable Muslim who has no idea of politics might come across the following. How would he react and interpret the text anyway but literally:

�________ Quran-9:29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility.


�________ Quran-9:5: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush�.


�________ Quran-47:4: When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads�.


�________ Quran-2:191: And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith.


�________ Quran-8: 65: O Apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight�(against) unbelievers.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I VERY strongly suspect that you have never done such a thing, so until you answer the question, you're just talking out your urethra.

-s*

You can suspect all you want, but I'm still correct. You may not see it because you're used to reading it in, I assume, a moderate light. But the nutjob Saudis, Wahhabists, Taliban, Iranian Ayatollahs, Islamic Jihad, et al., ad infinitum--they take the Quran and twist its words to their own morally bankrupt, corrupt, disingenuous, pathetic, hate-mongering, and destructive purposes. That's what I'm getting at.

Have a nice day, Almighty and All-seeing *s.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Boo-yah! Up yours, *s. And if you weren't lazy and an apostate like the other infidel doubters here, you'd have opened your mind and eyes to my wisdom.

[Developer]

Originally posted by vmarks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclc1.html
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...yndon_LaRouche

Thanks, vmarks. Very interesting reading.

If you look at the web site of the Schiller Institut they look very "normal", I would have said humanistic. Very tragic that the British student got in contact with them like this.

I must say that this is a bit scary. This covered anti-Semitism is much more dangerous than the open extremism of the skinhead neo-Nazis for example.


Why doesn't the Democratic Party expel him?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Boo-yah! Up yours, *s. And if you weren't lazy and an apostate like the other infidel doubters here, you'd have opened your mind and eyes to my wisdom.

I stand by my claim, which, as you may note, was not about the Quran.

-s*

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Does that mean you'd subvert your country's democratic and free traditions to remold it into a theocracy?

It means if I must choose between my country and my religion the choice is obvious.

[swrate]

Originally posted by RooneyX:


My point is are we alive just to serve our own egos and beliefs or to make things better for future generations?

The fox is howling outside.
I liked many posts in this thread.

I am not sure we can make things better at this stage.
We can try and not make them worse.

Difficult to guarantee someone will not become extremist, in moments of vulnerability we generally fall into sometimes sordid associations.
Sects recruit their members when people are defenceless.



To give and receive a balanced education helps, but even then, we never know what comes our way to influence, brainwash or manipulate us.
Fanatism develops when the mental, emotional and physical food is bad.

That is why its good I think, to try and remain sceptical and critical over our own culture/religion/race/gender/social background.
I think ALL main religions should be taught, at least the basics, their rituals and their history....
Allah (swt)is not an invisible dictator.

The central point of religions is faith, so why do we often segregate the �other� religions, the minority usually, - its easier to attack in herds- , are we frightened the balance may tilt the other side?

Its easier to accept the differences when one becomes familiar with them and learns about them.


Where as the topic, sadly, tragic beatings happen all over the planet all the time, to all minorities. It happens here, not often but regulary as far as I can remember.
Europe more anti- ?

Its not just Europe, it's all over.
Paranoia

Violence generates violence, and TV has been showing lots of gore stuff lately. Most kids, living with their parents see parts of the news..

Ask a Lebanese or a Saudi or -anyone from the Middle-East- the procedures followed now to marry a Canadian i.e. its unbelievable!
unbelievable! papers and papers to fill, attestations, bills, copies of phone bills, restaurants, port-folio to prepare (no need to say if you are not rich and smart, forget about it)
I would say this tightening and intolerance is global.

The quotes of Larouche disturbed me!!!!
His interpretation of history, the Manichaenist cult, and this snippet, completly wrong:
"The laws of Moses and related materials in the Old Testament are not part of Israelite religious tradition, but the product of international counterinsurgency operations in sixth and fifth century BC Babylon."
?
Moses is born centuries earlier and rituals in the tribes followed the laws of Moses before, 500-600 BC i.e. Sabbat, circumcision....
I didnt know they were "half-religions" whole religions, and what is buddhism, a "one third of a religion"?
Moses 444 is a prophet praised in the scriptures: Thorah, Koran,and Bible.

yes, tolerance understanding forgiveness is to accept not to discredit others beliefs, -even if they have none-, as long as it doesnt harm them nor the others.
The roots of religion are identical so why such a big deal?

yes, hopefully "Semitics" will find homogeneity, light, and a solution hand in hand.
and I will sleep....

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
this is just like the Al Jazeera crap--I won't do your obvious research for you. Pick up the Quran and start reading. Within 40 pages you will come across something that, if interpreted literally, would fit the bill of today's 'wacko extremists', be they Muslim, Christian, or Jewish.

It's like asking me to prove that most humans are born with 10 fingers and toes, and then asking me to provide an example! Look around! I'm not here to spoon feed you out of intellectual laziness.

I've almost finished the Quran and have found no such thing. What is it, can't you back up your claims?

[Logic]

Originally posted by RooneyX:

�________ Quran-9:29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility.


�________ Quran-9:5: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush�.


�________ Quran-47:4: When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads�.


�________ Quran-2:191: And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith.


�________ Quran-8: 65: O Apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight�(against) unbelievers.

First of all, you should at least show the respect to quote the whole verses.

Then just one word. Context.

[itai195]

Originally posted by voodoo:
It means if I must choose between my country and my religion the choice is obvious.

One of the benefits of living in a secular state is that you should never have to make this decision.

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Not questioning a person's loyalty because of their religion is a stupid, stupid thing and leads to incidents like the one early in the war where a Muslim US soldier hurled a grenade into a tent full of colleagues.

That's why I think Sherwin is wrong here. The soldier in question misunderstood the purpose of the war, leading him to make a decision based on mixed loyalties. Having mixed loyalties was not he cause of his action. There were plenty of other Muslim US soldiers who didn't do what he did.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Logic:
First of all, you should at least show the respect to quote the whole verses.

Then just one word. Context.

How do you interpret them? And when they are from a Secular Islamic website, run by Arabs themselves who are fed up of social systematic brainwashing, then why should you're argument be better than theirs?

One thing that disturbs me is that when a religious person, of any denomination, has to tackle criticism of his/her religion, they will attempt to implant guilt into their critic with the very very common heard line 'You should show respect...'

How about respect for the unbeliever's beliefs? In ancient times it meant stoning to death or beheading.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
First of all, you should at least show the respect to quote the whole verses.

Then just one word. Context.

One of the fundamental problems is that someone can take any quote out of context from any of the holy books. That's precisely what almost anyone who has ever used any religion to justify an inhumane ideology has done. A lot of people, for a multitude of reasons, may not be as aware of this fact as you are.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by itai195:
One of the benefits of living in a secular state is that you should never have to make this decision.

I do live in a secular state. I'm talking priorities here.

[Logic]

Originally posted by itai195:
One of the fundamental problems is that someone can take any quote out of context from any of the holy books. That's precisely what almost anyone who has ever used any religion to justify an inhumane ideology has done. A lot of people, for a multitude of reasons, may not be as aware of this fact as you are.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I'm afriad he is right. You can pick up a Torah and find God inciting violence. You can find Jesus inciting violence in the Gospels. You can find clear passages in the Koran inciting violence. These texts were written ina world run by theocracies with tribes and empires facing each other off all the time.

I think Corpse has done far more critical research into the writings of the Quran than into the not-so-different-writings of the Bible.

[gadster]

Originally posted by swrate:
<snip> That is why its good I think, to try and remain sceptical and critical over our own culture/religion/race/gender/social background.<snip>

Scepticism is vastly underrated. Question everything, all the time. Over and over. Reality is relative.

[Developer]

I'll ask again, since I believe the question went under a little bit.

Why does the Democratic Party not expel LaRouche? Why do they let an anti-Semite candidate for presidency?

[gadster]

Originally posted by Developer:
I'll ask again, since I believe the question went under a little bit.

Why does the Democratic Party not expel LaRouche? Why do they let an anti-Semite candidate for presidency?

Good question, LaRouche is a strange fish.

Check this out

So, the competent modern form of a science of physical economy is broadly defined as Riemannian. In place of fanciful, aprioristic definitions, axioms, and postulates, we allow only the notion of powers, and of changes in geometry of practice effected through employment of newly discovered, relevant powers. Such is a generalized notion of a Riemann surface as applicable to the domain of practice of a science of physical economy.

Word salad!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Developer:
I'll ask again, since I believe the question went under a little bit.

Why does the Democratic Party not expel LaRouche? Why do they let an anti-Semite candidate for presidency?

He's not a strange fish, he's the closest thing America has to a facist.

He's also never been a Democrat Party presdential candidate- he's always run on his own party. Sorta hard for them to kick him out when he's already out. As for kicking him out of their conventions, that's a good question; they had the means to kick out Ralph Nader, why did they not expel LaRouche? And, if they expelled him what were they to do with his supporters?

One possible answer is, they don't want to be known as the exclusionist party, kicking everyone out who disagrees, another is, they didn't perceive LaRouche as the threat he is, only focused on Nader as the vote-opposition threat. A third possibility is that they don't want to lend any credibility or recognition to LaRouche as a threat by acknowledging him at their convention, even if only to expel him.