[Chongo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I'm sorry, but one person's experience in one very specific part of the world does not translate into the United States falling under the rule of those who have power in that part of the world.

Have you been Dearborn(istan) MI lately? The police have been arresting people for handing out the New Testament in arabic.

[imitchellg5]

Source?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Radical Islam is to the 21st Century (currently) what Nazism and Stalinsim were to the 20th Century. I don't know if you appreciate the stakes, mitchell.

Radical Islam is nowhere near widespread on a national level like either of those were and has no popular support. I'd say that the Tea Party is more of an intentional danger than radical Islam.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Source?

YouTube - Arab Festival 2010: Dearborn Police Defending Islam against the Constitution

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Radical Islam is nowhere near widespread on a national level like either of those were and has no popular support. I'd say that the Tea Party is more of an intentional danger than radical Islam.

Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttttt

-t

[imitchellg5]

They are both fueled by unfounded fear.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Radical Islam is nowhere near widespread on a national level like either of those were and has no popular support. I'd say that the Tea Party is more of an intentional danger than radical Islam.

Radical Islam is nowhere near as widespread on a national level in what country? In America in 2011 you're right, radical Islam is not widespread, but it is definitely a growing threat. However, internationally radical Islam is widespread and a substantial threat in many countries, including many European countries. And unlike Nazism and Communism radical Islam has its evil doctrines and intentions integrated with one of the largest and fastest growing religions in the world. Nazism died as a vital force with the fall of Nazi Germany and the death of Hitler, but radical Islam won't be uprooted just with the destruction of Al Qaeda and the death of a figure like Bin Laden. And like Nazism and Stalinism, radical Islam seeks world domination.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Radical Islam is nowhere near as widespread on a national level in what country? In America in 2011 you're right, radical Islam is not widespread, but it is definitely a growing threat. However, internationally radical Islam is widespread and a threat in many countries. And unlike Nazism and Communism radical Islam has its evil doctrines and intentions integrated with one of the largest and fastest growing religions in the world. Nazism died as a vital force with the fall of Nazi Germany and the death of Hitler, but radical Islam won't be uprooted just with the destruction of Al Qaeda and the death of a figure like Bin Laden. And like Nazism and Stalinism, radical Islam seeks world domination.

Especially with Iran preparing the way for the Mahdi.
Iran Leaders:The Coming is Upon Us–Israel Shall be Destroyed | A Time to Betray
YouTube - The Comin is Upon Us - Translation by Reza Kahlili - www.Atimetobetray.com

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Radical Islam is nowhere near as widespread on a national level in what country? In America in 2011 you're right, radical Islam is not widespread, but it is definitely a growing threat. However, internationally radical Islam is widespread and a substantial threat in many countries, including many European countries. And unlike Nazism and Communism radical Islam has its evil doctrines and intentions integrated with one of the largest and fastest growing religions in the world. Nazism died as a vital force with the fall of Nazi Germany and the death of Hitler, but radical Islam won't be uprooted just with the destruction of Al Qaeda and the death of a figure like Bin Laden. And like Nazism and Stalinism, radical Islam seeks world domination.

I don't see a divide between radical religion and fanatical political ideologies. Believe me, I know radical Islam is an issue, certainly. But I don't think that a fear of losing control of this nation to an outside force in that manner is rational. I think though if you study Islam and radical Islam that you'll find most of radical Islam's doctrines are not anywhere to be found in the Qur'an or hadith but are actually stemming from a mixture of twisted philosophy, history, and misinterpretations.

[besson3c]

I don't get the hysteria either, imitchell. That a group wants to do this country harm doesn't necessarily warrant our fears and consternation.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where is that line drawn? Are you okay with the Westboro military funeral protests? The KKK?

Sure they are exercising their rights, but there are many ways to exercise these rights. Do you feel that there is a line - maybe not a legal one, but a *********gery line?

I despise the Westboro protestors, but acknowledge they have a right to protest whatever they want. I would argue that they don't have the right to protest and celebrate dead American soldiers IN THE FACES of the families, so those families who must bury their dead can't escape the protestors. And that's pretty much how it works with Westboro -- they are given space near funerals, but are not allowed *at* the funerals.

And the KKK should be entitled to hold rallies like everyone else, as long as they don't begin actively intimidating people.

But free speech cannot be limited because it will hurt somebody's feelings, or because someone else thinks that they should choose a different way to exercise their rights.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing anyone has ever said.

You have the right to set yourself on fire until you burn to death too. Off you go then.

God you're stupid.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Lets keep giving the Muslims a pass on their poor behavior. When they grow up perhaps I'll take them seriously.

Fixed

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Lets keep giving Americans a pass on their poor behavior. When they grow up perhaps the world will take the US more seriously.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure, he exercised his right to behave like a f*cking idiot.

Just because it's ok or lawful to do something doesn't make it wise or prudent.

You know, you can eat spaghetti with shit sauce, it's your darn right.
You're still a moron.

-t

So the Pastor is a moron for doing something you say isn't "wise or prudent"?

And what wasn't "wise or prudent" about his action? The fact that he must have known that burning this particular book in protest would set a bunch of murderous Muslim thugs off on a rampage?

That's exactly WHY he should have burned the Koran! You seem to believe that the Pastor should have modified a very American behavior (burning or otherwise denigrating something in protest that other people hold sacred) for the sake of the violent Muslim mob. In other words, because the mob would likely react in an extremely unreasonable and uncivilized way, then the mob should be allowed to have its way. The American should modify or self-suppress his reasonable behavior (again, burning flags and pissing on images of Jesus and other provocative acts very common in America) for fear of an unreasonable reaction by the Muslim mob. It sounds to me that that's what you're saying, yes?

And that's just ASININE. The fact is, if the Muslim street is liable to rampage and murder innocent people over a book burned half way across the world, then the street is a BULLY, AND WHEN BULLIES TRY TO COERCE YOU, YOU NEED TO DEFY THEM AND CHALLENGE THEM. The sooner, the better. That's ultimately how progress is made, versus letting a bully slowly-but-surely limit your reasonable freedom simply to avoid making trouble.

I don't know if you used the term "hornet's nest" or someone else in this thread, but it strikes me that your comment is in agreement with the idea that Pastor Jones should not have knowingly stirred up a hornet's nest. Well, if that's such a great and credible concept, let's see how it applies to other scenarios:

** Black protestors marching and striking in the South during the 60s certainly stirred a hornet's nest among white racists who were willing to do violence, and the actions of those black protests certainly prompted some whites to lynch other blacks wherever they could be found (not even protesting blacks!). Were the black protestors "idiots" for stirring a hornet's nest, and getting other blacks killed?

** Mexico is in a quasi-civil war with its drug gangs. Should a newly elected politician or police chief not bother going after the drug lords, because of all the death and destruction those drug lords will unleash when they're challenged? Is an honest Mexican cop or politician an "idiot" for stirring such a hornet's nest?

No, they're not idiots. They're brave, just as Jones is brave (he constantly receives death threats, and you can bet that some of them are credible, given the kind of animals he's upsetting). But the black civil rights protestors, and honest law reps in Mexico, and Jones all know that to eventually clear a hornet's nest, you first have to stir it.

One more thing about Jones, and why his act was so necessary. I believe Jones first started talking about burning Korans during the Ground Zero Mosque debate. In that debate, American "liberals" ferociously defended the mosque's right to be at the site of the greatest act of mass murder committed in the name of Islam in the modern era. The reason was so cut-and-dry to this group: our traditions and laws supporting freedom of religion and expression. So when the pastor announces that he's going to burn some Korans, he was probably surprised to find many of the same pro "Bill of Rights" people screaming about his provocative act. The public controversy got so big (with the nation's top general directly asking him not to burn the Koran), that Jones backed down. But I can't imagine such hypocrisy sat well with him. It would not have sat well with me. And eventually Jones probably realized that he was letting a group of so called "freedom-loving" Americans talk/cajole/shout him out of his own right to express himself, while defending a mosque at Ground Zero. The right thing for Jones to do was to go ahead and burn that book, and that's what he did.

This nation needs a lot more Pastor Joneses. We're a free people (so far, despite the best efforts of a lot of our own citizens), and we've *earned* that freedom over 250 years. Instead of cow-towing to a Muslim mob on the other side of the planet, what would happen if Koran burnings and Muhanmmed cartoons, and books that mention Mohammed (as in Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses) happened on a daily basis? One of two things: 1) either the Muslim mob would realize that they're not going to intimidate anyone, and get the message that their violence only encourages our defiance, or 2) they would become even more violent and draconian and oblige us to obliterate them, rather than just tiptoeing around them which is what we've been doing. Either way is far better than letting them put a chill on the 250+ year tradition of protecting controversial, provocative acts.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Radical Islam is nowhere near as widespread on a national level in what country? In America in 2011 you're right, radical Islam is not widespread, but it is definitely a growing threat. However, internationally radical Islam is widespread and a substantial threat in many countries, including many European countries. And unlike Nazism and Communism radical Islam has its evil doctrines and intentions integrated with one of the largest and fastest growing religions in the world. Nazism died as a vital force with the fall of Nazi Germany and the death of Hitler, but radical Islam won't be uprooted just with the destruction of Al Qaeda and the death of a figure like Bin Laden. And like Nazism and Stalinism, radical Islam seeks world domination.

Radical Islam is still a small minority all around the world. They just happen to stand out most and get the only news time. The majority of Muslims are not radicals around the world. Crap like this from Radical Christians who most Christians would not agree are real Christians just make it seem like all Christians are out to piss off Muslims just like the Radical Muslims which most Muslims don't consider real Muslims make all Muslims look bad. AS long as each side only looks at the Radicals of each side as being the majority we will continue to have these bloody wide spread issues

[Athens]

Originally Posted by k2director 

So the Pastor is a moron for doing something you say isn't "wise or prudent"?

And what wasn't "wise or prudent" about his action? The fact that he must have known that burning this particular book in protest would set a bunch of murderous Muslim thugs off on a rampage?

That's exactly WHY he should have burned the Koran! You seem to believe that the Pastor should have modified a very American behavior (burning something other people hold sacred in protest) for the sake of the violent Muslim mob. In other words, because the mob would likely react in an extremely unreasonable and uncivilized way, then the mob should be allowed to have its way. The American should modify or self-suppress his reasonable behavior (again, burning flags and pissing on images of Jesus and other provocative acts very common in America) for fear of an unreasonable reaction by the Muslim mob. It sounds to me that that's what you're saying, yes?

Well then tomorrow im going to go buy a Bible (or perhaps see if i can get some church to give me one for free) so i can video tape me burning it and will post it on here for all you Christians to watch and ignore.

[Big Mac]

Athens, I hope and pray you're right that radical Islam is a tiny minority. I have seen much evidence to the contrary, though. Let me ask you this - what's your view of the Muslim Brotherhood?

[screener]

Originally Posted by k2director 

If anything, his act was closer to heroic than idiotic.

Dumb, Dumber and idiotic.
Nuff said.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Athens, I hope and pray you're right that radical Islam is a tiny minority. I have seen much evidence to the contrary, though. Let me ask you this - what's your view of the Muslim Brotherhood?

I suspect the only reason you see much evidence to the contrary is because that is all you're looking for and you completely ignore people like me who can say "I know many Muslims and have never met one that you would define as "radical"".

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I suspect the only reason you see much evidence to the contrary is because that is all you're looking for and you completely ignore people like me who can say "I know many Muslims and have never met one that you would define as "radical"".

Bingo!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Radical Islam is still a small minority all around the world.

1%? 10%? 10% is 100 million Jihadist.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Well then tomorrow im going to go buy a Bible (or perhaps see if i can get some church to give me one for free) so i can video tape me burning it and will post it on here for all you Christians to watch and ignore.

Been done already. So has submersing a crucifix in urine and spreading feces on a portrait of the Virgin Mary, to name but two, and calling it "art" (All brought to you by the National Endowment of the Arts.)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Been done already. So has submersing a crucifix in urine and spreading feces on a portrait of the Virgin Mary, to name but two, and calling it "art" (All brought to you by the National Endowment of the Arts.)

Very true. Chritians don't get much upset when one desecrates their sacred texts. Burn an American flag, however, and you'll see quite a few people upset and possibly land yourself in prison, or worse.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by k2director 

God you're stupid.

You missed the comma after God.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Burn an American flag, however, and you'll see quite a few people upset and possibly land yourself in prison, or worse.

Is this supposed to be a justification or excuse, if some redneck-ass American acts overly emotional and stupid regarding a piece of cloth ?

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Very true. Chritians don't get much upset when one desecrates their sacred texts. Burn an American flag, however, and you'll see quite a few people upset and possibly land yourself in prison, or worse.

Do you have some evidence that Christians are more tolerant of desecrating their texts than flag-burning or was this kind of a hail-Mary pass at a non-point?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You missed the comma after God.

Do you pass out tracts at concerts too?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Do you have some evidence that Christians are more tolerant of desecrating their texts than flag-burning or was this kind of a hail-Mary pass at a non-point?

Ah, sorry. I hadn't intended to suggest that Christains would be the ones upset with flag burning, though I see now that the words I chose are easily read that way.

Christains are quite tolerant of desecration of theirs texts.

Some Americas are not so tolerant of desecration of the American flag.

Some American laws are designed to punish those who desecrate the American flag.


Just pointing out that Muslins aren't the only ones who get upset over desecration of their symbols, though, they do tend to react much more violently in sone regions of the world (none of the Muslims I know went on a killing spree when they learned of the burning).

[Chongo]

What gets me is the "no depictions of Mohamed" riots. These are depictions by Muslims themselves, many in mosques. Mohammed Image Archive
Do these mosques need to be destroyed to preserve the ban?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Athens, I hope and pray you're right that radical Islam is a tiny minority. I have seen much evidence to the contrary, though. Let me ask you this - what's your view of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Same view as the Christian religion and many others, bunch of idiots following the Egyptian personification of how the natural observable universe works. Taking the stories literal instead of figuratively which is what they are.

Religion is the true and only Evil on this plant. No other idea has divided people up more, no other idea has caused more death and suffering. No other idea has resulted in a stifle of development. No other idea has is as dangerous as religion.

That's my opinion. I am almost positive that God or our creator(s) are shaking their heads right now at how we have developed.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I suspect the only reason you see much evidence to the contrary is because that is all you're looking for and you completely ignore people like me who can say "I know many Muslims and have never met one that you would define as "radical"".

Agreed, I know a ton of Muslims as well and none of them are radical. And most of them speak out about the radicals as not being true Muslims.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

1%? 10%? 10% is 100 million Jihadist.


Been done already. So has submersing a crucifix in urine and spreading feces on a portrait of the Virgin Mary, to name but two, and calling it "art" (All brought to you by the National Endowment of the Arts.)

Fine I'll just piss on the US Flag then, prob get more hits on youtube any ways with that one.

Even if it was 100 million Jihadists, that's a tiny % considering the population is 1.5+ billion people.

Estimates I can find are around 12 -24 million world wide who support Extremist with only 5 million being actual extremists. But I cant find consistent sources that match seems every one has a different opinion. So no idea.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Same view as the Christian religion and many others, bunch of idiots following the Egyptian personification of how the natural observable universe works.

lolwut?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Religion is the true and only Evil on this plant. No other idea has divided people up more, no other idea has caused more death and suffering. No other idea has resulted in a stifle of development. No other idea has is as dangerous as religion.

How about "dictatorship" ?? Religion without political power is fairly benign.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Religion without political power is fairly benign.

True, but religion seems always end up reaching for political power as an easy win to spread it's influence. And, political leaders are more than willing to accept it since alignment with a religion followed by the masses offers easier paths to power.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

How about "dictatorship" ??

Religion and Dictatorships often work hand-in-hand, propping each other up. Just look at present day Iran or colonial England and France.

[turtle777]

Pfff, as if political powers w/o influence of religion are necessarily so much better. Check Stalin, Hitler, etc...

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Pfff, as if political powers w/o influence of religion are necessarily so much better. Check Stalin, Hitler, etc...

-t

Did I say that?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Did I say that?

It sounded like you alluded to it.

All I'm saying is that this "Religion and Dictatorship" argument is not very strong, because dictators will use all kinds of justification to do their thing.
One time it's religion, another time it's socialism or communism, or something based on ethical origin etc.

I don't see how the religious tie is so much stronger than all others.

-t

[screener]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't see how the religious tie is so much stronger than all others.-t

It's been around a lot longer.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It sounded like you alluded to it.

All I'm saying is that this "Religion and Dictatorship" argument is not very strong, because dictators will use all kinds of justification to do their thing.
One time it's religion, another time it's socialism or communism, or something based on ethical origin etc.

I don't see how the religious tie is so much stronger than all others.

-t

Nope. As you point out, there are notable examples of non-religious dictatorships. But, history is littered with many more examples of dictatorships based on religion.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nope. As you point out, there are notable examples of non-religious dictatorships. But, history is littered with many more examples of dictatorships based on religion.

Every dictatorship I can think of in the last century has been 100% against any establishment of religion. Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, etc.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Every dictatorship I can think of in the last century has been 100% against any establishment of religion. Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, etc.

Don't forget to consider the monarchies and theocracies.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Every dictatorship I can think of in the last century has been 100% against any establishment of religion. Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, etc.

Well of course because religion is incompatible with government. They also banned opposing political parties as well. That is what a dictatorship is, single party system that does not allow any other ideas or parties. Democratic governments allow not only one religion but freedom of all religions as a special interest group like many other special interest groups with rights and protections and freedoms afforded to all special interest groups. A secular democratic government is the only kind of government that ensures religion freedom and political freedom. Nations ran by religious governments ban other religions.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Don't forget to consider the monarchies and theocracies.

Monarchies? Queen Elizabeth? I can't think of any other monarchies left. I can't think of a theocracy either. There are a few nations with theocratic elements, but none are completely theocratic. The closest would be Iran, but the shah is elected via a counsel of peers, not declared via divine authority.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Monarchies? Queen Elizabeth? I can't think of any other monarchies left. I can't think of a theocracy either.

That's only because you aren't trying very hard.

Monarchy in the 20th Century
Theocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[imitchellg5]

All of those countries apart from Saudi Arabia only have a monarch as a historical figure with little to no political power.

Thank you for your wikipedia article, now please read the wikipedia article.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

All of those countries apart from Saudi Arabia only have a monarch as a historical figure with little to no political power.

Thank you for your wikipedia article, now please read the wikipedia article.

A Historical figure that has not challenged authority or imposed its authority over the government. In such a case it would be civil war between the hard core monarchs and those that want nothing to do with the monarchies. Its like the pope. If the pope was to call to arms all believers to do something, he alone could raise a army of believers that would be imposing and larger then many of the planets armies. Just because it has not been used does not mean it wouldn't happen or can't happen.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A Historical figure that has not challenged authority or imposed its authority over the government. In such a case it would be civil war between the hard core monarchs and those that want nothing to do with the monarchies. Its like the pope. If the pope was to call to arms all believers to do something, he alone could raise a army of believers that would be imposing and larger then many of the planets armies. Just because it has not been used does not mean it wouldn't happen or can't happen.

Well, speaking historically, the Catholic church has done just that a few times before by using its influence upon other countries (Spain and Ireland). If that were to happen today, I imagine that even if every single Catholic decided to do so, they'd be wiped out pretty quickly by militaries that happen to have weapons.

[Shaddim]

Yeah, because the last few times the pope raised armies to go attack people.. oh wait...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, because the last few times the pope raised armies to go attack people.. oh wait...

That's what I was thinking. Is this the new FUD? The Christians are coming for you and they are armed and united? Egadz man.