#176
Posted: 9/21/14 at 9:49am
Just because Gaveston isn't parroting your own posts doesn't mean he's "missed the point." There is more than one point being made in this thread.
Hamas IS Isis and Isis IS Hamas! — Page 8
#177
Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:20am
{"who was a loving, peaceful man"
Tell that to the money lenders. Tell that to the mother he continually belittled.}
How many of the money lenders did Jesus kill? How many did he order to have their throats slit?
Would you prefer to raise your daughter in a primarily Christian nation or a primarily Muslim nation? Would you prefer to raise your gay son in a primarily Christian nation or a primarily Muslim nation?
Tell that to the money lenders. Tell that to the mother he continually belittled.}
How many of the money lenders did Jesus kill? How many did he order to have their throats slit?
Would you prefer to raise your daughter in a primarily Christian nation or a primarily Muslim nation? Would you prefer to raise your gay son in a primarily Christian nation or a primarily Muslim nation?
#178
Oh, Mikey, please go away and stop posting in this thread.
Please? I'll give you a cookie.
Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:34am
Oh, Mikey, please go away and stop posting in this thread.
Please? I'll give you a cookie.
#179
Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:16pm
Thank you, Regi.
PJ, i didn't miss the point and, as I said, I think the Melhem article is excellent.
I was merely addressing the claim that we Western liberals think EVERYTHING is OUR fault. It is possible to recognize mistakes we have made in the region and to learn from them, without taking all the blame or absolving Arab terrorists for their crimes.
If I engaged in black-and-white claims like those made here about liberals, you would be the first to call me on it.
All that being said, I will repeat my appreciation for the Melhem article. We need more like it if the general public is to ever distinguish between Islamists and democratic Muslims.
Sometimes I think you are responding to what you expect me to write, rather than what I actually post. If I am mistaken, I apologize.
PJ, i didn't miss the point and, as I said, I think the Melhem article is excellent.
I was merely addressing the claim that we Western liberals think EVERYTHING is OUR fault. It is possible to recognize mistakes we have made in the region and to learn from them, without taking all the blame or absolving Arab terrorists for their crimes.
If I engaged in black-and-white claims like those made here about liberals, you would be the first to call me on it.
All that being said, I will repeat my appreciation for the Melhem article. We need more like it if the general public is to ever distinguish between Islamists and democratic Muslims.
Sometimes I think you are responding to what you expect me to write, rather than what I actually post. If I am mistaken, I apologize.
#181
Posted: 9/22/14 at 11:07am
Bill Maher says what I have been saying. Watch as he schools PBS Host Charlie Rose Over Islam's 'Illiberal Beliefs'
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/must-watch-bill-maher-schools-pbs-host-charlie-rose-over-islams-illiberal-beliefs
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/must-watch-bill-maher-schools-pbs-host-charlie-rose-over-islams-illiberal-beliefs
Updated On: 9/22/14 at 11:07 AM
#182
Posted: 9/22/14 at 11:13am
"illiberal beliefs that are held by vast numbers of Muslim people." Rose interjected with a left-wing talking point: "Vast number of Christians, too." The comedian shot back, "No, no. That's not true – not true. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion, you should be killed for it."
Updated On: 9/22/14 at 11:13 AM
#183
Posted: 9/22/14 at 11:25am
... Except for Gaveston. Gaveston definitely believes that. Would love for him to face off with Mr. Maher!
#185
According to the UN Human Rights Office, in Saudi Arabia, people convicted of leaving Islam are beheaded.
Also, people convicted of adultery, drug-smuggling and sorcery.
Defendants are tortured until they confess and not allowed to have a lawyer. In 2014, there have been 45 beheadings so far, 22 of them in August.
UN NEWS CENTRE: UN rights experts urge Saudi Arabia to halt ‘stream of executions, beheadings’
Posted: 9/22/14 at 11:46am
According to the UN Human Rights Office, in Saudi Arabia, people convicted of leaving Islam are beheaded.
Also, people convicted of adultery, drug-smuggling and sorcery.
Defendants are tortured until they confess and not allowed to have a lawyer. In 2014, there have been 45 beheadings so far, 22 of them in August.
UN NEWS CENTRE: UN rights experts urge Saudi Arabia to halt ‘stream of executions, beheadings’
#186
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:26pm
Anyone who suggests that even the basic, black-and-white teachings of Islam are equatable to Christianity is an agendist with no grasp of the facts.
#187
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:31pm
... Except for Gaveston. Gaveston definitely believes that. Would love for him to face off with Mr. Maher!
I love Bill Maher and I suspect I watch him a lot more regularly than you do, Headband. I would love to actually speak with him. I don't think he's the funniest person on the planet, but I appreciate the fact that he says what no one else (except Lewis Black) will say.
But in the above exchange Maher constructs a straw man argument. The statement in question concerns "illiberal religious views" and Charlie Rose correctly points out that many Christians hold such views themselves. (Look at the polls of American Christians claiming God's law supersedes secular law. George W. Bush surged in the polls after naming Jesus Christ as his favorite political philosopher.)
Maher then constructs his straw man: a number of Muslims still uphold the belief that Muslim apostates should be executed, a principle actually codified in Saudi law.
One might point out that many Christian nations had similar laws until the 18th century. A major difference between Christian and Muslim nations is that the latter were protected from the influence of the Enlightenment by the strength of the Ottoman Empire and caliphates in South Asia.
But Rose is correct: illiberal views are not unique to Islam. Maher himself points out a similar lack of liberality among Christians and even Scientologists in his documentary, RELIGULOUS.
I greatly appreciate Maher's willingness to speak out against sacred cows. But his method, as here, is often hit and miss. It's easy to make a case against anything if you simply take potshots and assume no responsibility for a coherent, inclusive counter-argument.
None of this is to defend the barbaric practices of ISIS or the Saudis. I think they violate principles of humanity as well as offending God.
I love Bill Maher and I suspect I watch him a lot more regularly than you do, Headband. I would love to actually speak with him. I don't think he's the funniest person on the planet, but I appreciate the fact that he says what no one else (except Lewis Black) will say.
But in the above exchange Maher constructs a straw man argument. The statement in question concerns "illiberal religious views" and Charlie Rose correctly points out that many Christians hold such views themselves. (Look at the polls of American Christians claiming God's law supersedes secular law. George W. Bush surged in the polls after naming Jesus Christ as his favorite political philosopher.)
Maher then constructs his straw man: a number of Muslims still uphold the belief that Muslim apostates should be executed, a principle actually codified in Saudi law.
One might point out that many Christian nations had similar laws until the 18th century. A major difference between Christian and Muslim nations is that the latter were protected from the influence of the Enlightenment by the strength of the Ottoman Empire and caliphates in South Asia.
But Rose is correct: illiberal views are not unique to Islam. Maher himself points out a similar lack of liberality among Christians and even Scientologists in his documentary, RELIGULOUS.
I greatly appreciate Maher's willingness to speak out against sacred cows. But his method, as here, is often hit and miss. It's easy to make a case against anything if you simply take potshots and assume no responsibility for a coherent, inclusive counter-argument.
None of this is to defend the barbaric practices of ISIS or the Saudis. I think they violate principles of humanity as well as offending God.
Updated On: 9/22/14 at 01:31 PM
#188
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:39pm
Anyone who suggests that even the basic, black-and-white teachings of Islam are equatable to Christianity is an agendist with no grasp of the facts.
What the hell are you trying to say?
Today's Islam isn't so different from the Christianity of the 18th century in many countries. (Read Voltaire on the Inquisition.) Christianity in most places has moved forward a bit (and a lot in most of Western Europe), but the Islamic world remained apart as Europe fought its religious wars.
The question before us is how do we encourage radical Muslims to embrace modernity, including the concept of religious freedom? And of course we may ask the same question of radical Christians, whether or not they behead anybody.
Personally, I doubt we'll find an answer as long as we fund archaic beliefs by buying oil.
What the hell are you trying to say?
Today's Islam isn't so different from the Christianity of the 18th century in many countries. (Read Voltaire on the Inquisition.) Christianity in most places has moved forward a bit (and a lot in most of Western Europe), but the Islamic world remained apart as Europe fought its religious wars.
The question before us is how do we encourage radical Muslims to embrace modernity, including the concept of religious freedom? And of course we may ask the same question of radical Christians, whether or not they behead anybody.
Personally, I doubt we'll find an answer as long as we fund archaic beliefs by buying oil.
Updated On: 9/22/14 at 01:39 PM
#189
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:41pm
You are (again) mistaken. Apology (again) accepted.
Thank you. But, honestly, PJ, I am not parroting liberal canards here. You seem to respond to those rather than to what I actually post.
Thank you. But, honestly, PJ, I am not parroting liberal canards here. You seem to respond to those rather than to what I actually post.
#190
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:42pm
I don't see it as a a straw man argument at all. He is being very clear.
#191
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:48pm
The fact that a blind man can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
#192
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:50pm
...But we aren't talking about 18th century Christianity, Gaveston. Who ever suggested that Christianity was perfect in its organized form? I cannot imagine anyone would deny that Christianity and Catholicism have a tainted past, filled with corruption and violence. But they learned, over time, to moderate their religion and quiet the extremists. For right now, in September of 2014, the predominantly violent (and most notable/high profile) movement is, in fact, Islamic Jihad. Not Christianity or Catholicism.
Updated On: 9/22/14 at 01:50 PM
#193
Posted: 9/22/14 at 1:59pm
I'm trying to say that when you read the basic teachings of Christianity in the Bible, there are no commands to kill infidels.
#194
Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:00pm
I agree, Headband (though you overstate the case for Christian liberality: ask any victim of gay bashing).
This thread started with claims that Islam is INHERENTLY violent and illiberal. My point re Christianity is we might have said the same about the followers of Jesus not so very long ago.
If Christianity could change (as it has in most places, though not everywhere), there is no reason to assume that Islam can not.
But I agree that the global challenge of our time is the medievalism of Islamism v. modern principles of freedom and humane treatment.
Before we assume that Islam is and always was hostile to other religions, we should check our history books. Jews lived relatively unmolested for centuries in Muslim countries, even as they were persecuted in Christian ones.
This thread started with claims that Islam is INHERENTLY violent and illiberal. My point re Christianity is we might have said the same about the followers of Jesus not so very long ago.
If Christianity could change (as it has in most places, though not everywhere), there is no reason to assume that Islam can not.
But I agree that the global challenge of our time is the medievalism of Islamism v. modern principles of freedom and humane treatment.
Before we assume that Islam is and always was hostile to other religions, we should check our history books. Jews lived relatively unmolested for centuries in Muslim countries, even as they were persecuted in Christian ones.
#195
Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:03pm
That is all very good. But we are talking about what it is now.
#196
Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:07pm
"My point re Christianity is we might have said the same about the followers of Jesus not so very long ago."
Completely agreed, my friend!
"If Christianity could change (as it has in most places, though not everywhere), there is no reason to assume that Islam can not."
Again, I agree!
See??? There is always a light at the end of the tunnel. If you and I can agree on some things, surely there's still hope for me and Namo!
I do not deny that the knee-jerk reaction is blaming the entire religion of Islam, but I think we all know that it's merely their interpretation of the religion that we reject (and hold responsible). Either way, I do not think anyone here... except for Mikey, probably.... is suggesting any one religion is 'perfect.' Every religious group/sect/denomination has its moments of darkness. Including Christianity. But hundreds of thousands of Christians are not currently robbing banks, bombing places of worship, killing babies, raping children, torturing infidels, stoning women, and beheading innocents; radical Islamists are doing that. And that's what this conversation was originally focused on.
Completely agreed, my friend!
"If Christianity could change (as it has in most places, though not everywhere), there is no reason to assume that Islam can not."
Again, I agree!
See??? There is always a light at the end of the tunnel. If you and I can agree on some things, surely there's still hope for me and Namo!
I do not deny that the knee-jerk reaction is blaming the entire religion of Islam, but I think we all know that it's merely their interpretation of the religion that we reject (and hold responsible). Either way, I do not think anyone here... except for Mikey, probably.... is suggesting any one religion is 'perfect.' Every religious group/sect/denomination has its moments of darkness. Including Christianity. But hundreds of thousands of Christians are not currently robbing banks, bombing places of worship, killing babies, raping children, torturing infidels, stoning women, and beheading innocents; radical Islamists are doing that. And that's what this conversation was originally focused on.
#197
Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:17pm
"I'm trying to say that when you read the basic teachings of Christianity in the Bible, there are no commands to kill infidels."
Excerpted from http://www.answers.com/Q/What_verses_in_the_Bible_advocate_killing_non-believers:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
***
Now I'll grant you that Jesus Himself dials down the rhetoric in the NT, and I understand the concept of a "New Covenant". But Christians CHOSE to keep the OT as part of their Bible and frequently cite it to justify their prejudices and actions.
Are they as violent today as radical Islamists? No, of course not. But only because most Christian countries have strong secular populations that usually keep the Christian radicals at bay.
This is what the Melhem article posted above by PJ talks about: in most Islamic countries, there is only a small liberal faction caught in between the strongman dictator faction and the fundamentalist Islamist faction.
Excerpted from http://www.answers.com/Q/What_verses_in_the_Bible_advocate_killing_non-believers:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
***
Now I'll grant you that Jesus Himself dials down the rhetoric in the NT, and I understand the concept of a "New Covenant". But Christians CHOSE to keep the OT as part of their Bible and frequently cite it to justify their prejudices and actions.
Are they as violent today as radical Islamists? No, of course not. But only because most Christian countries have strong secular populations that usually keep the Christian radicals at bay.
This is what the Melhem article posted above by PJ talks about: in most Islamic countries, there is only a small liberal faction caught in between the strongman dictator faction and the fundamentalist Islamist faction.
#198
For right now, in September of 2014, the predominantly violent (and most notable/high profile) movement is, in fact, Islamic Jihad.
Stop using that phrase, Headband. It refers to ONE SINGLE fundamentalist Sunni group in the Palestinian territories, smaller than Hamas and with less power. Therefore it is not "the predominantly violent movement" of anything anywhere.
You mean a generic term. You have many you can use to make your facile and reductive points:
You can say "jihadism" or "Islamism" or even "Islamic terrorism" or "Salafist Jihadism" or even "militant Islam."
BUT YOU CANNOT USE "ISLAMIC JIHAD" AS A GENERIC TERM!
It makes you look stupid and it makes very very, very cross.
This is me, on a jihad to make you stop using that phrase. Being on a jihad does not mean I am violent.
Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:22pm
For right now, in September of 2014, the predominantly violent (and most notable/high profile) movement is, in fact, Islamic Jihad.
Stop using that phrase, Headband. It refers to ONE SINGLE fundamentalist Sunni group in the Palestinian territories, smaller than Hamas and with less power. Therefore it is not "the predominantly violent movement" of anything anywhere.
You mean a generic term. You have many you can use to make your facile and reductive points:
You can say "jihadism" or "Islamism" or even "Islamic terrorism" or "Salafist Jihadism" or even "militant Islam."
BUT YOU CANNOT USE "ISLAMIC JIHAD" AS A GENERIC TERM!
It makes you look stupid and it makes very very, very cross.
This is me, on a jihad to make you stop using that phrase. Being on a jihad does not mean I am violent.
#199
Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:25pm
With respect, Headband (now that we are agreeing), the thread began with theaternut's complaint that the "PC" media refused to acknowledge the inherent connection between Islam itself and the barbarity of ISIS, explicitly claiming the religion is to blame, not the history of the region.
It was with that claim I took issue. I am by no means denying the threat of radical Islam in today's world. I have to remove my shoes at airports, too. LOL.
It was with that claim I took issue. I am by no means denying the threat of radical Islam in today's world. I have to remove my shoes at airports, too. LOL.
#200
Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:58pm
I think theatrernut did have a point, though. There is a double standard in the media. It's marginal at best, and reserved only for partisan outlets (on both sides), but it exists. I do not agree, however, that mainstream media as a whole is guilty of this.
PalJoey - bite me. Jihadists are Islamic and when I use that term I refer to a larger grouping of radical terrorists, not just to the smaller subsection of Muslims. And I will continue to do so. Especially now that I know it irks you to no end. Thanks!
PalJoey - bite me. Jihadists are Islamic and when I use that term I refer to a larger grouping of radical terrorists, not just to the smaller subsection of Muslims. And I will continue to do so. Especially now that I know it irks you to no end. Thanks!
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
