Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Frightening. And disgusting beyond words.
Absolutely sickening
Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, William Wallace--all the great and not so great, filled with British/UK pride and WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT--must be spinning in their graves.
Good God.
But you forget, it's the religion of peace and we should be "diverse" and "tolerant"...
yeah right...
Thanks for the mention as always. Inch by inch they are pushing Islam on idiotic infidels like the Bishop, who is their 'tool'.
And the United States Muslims thanked Allah for the tornadoes that destroyed property and killed infidels.
Any questions Obama, Clinton, McCain???
Do you mean American muslims Deb?
Deb, I hadn't heard about that (been catching up on organizational duties)--any links to pass on with that?
We are merely witnessing the result of leftist controlled denominations such as the Church of England’s pandering to Islam and moral equivalency. The Church of England has seen their pews mostly empty on Sundays for well over a decade. One-by-one America’s Christian denominations are following suit.
It is indeed a true state of affairs with American pews. I've noticed this in my own parish for years--at least until a few years ago. As a Catholic, I've noticed the pews are nearly empty at the "new" Mass, the one approved after Vatican II. However, I've noticed the place is nearly PACKED to standing room only for the traditional Latin Masses. And it's YOUNG people in the Latin Masses, yearning for the traditions, young families. I find that very telling.
I'll repeat here what I said on BlueCrab:
Before you start playing Taps for the UK, read what the reaction has been (from the BBC):
“But Gordon Brown’s spokesman said the prime minister “believes that British laws should be based on British values”.
He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: “To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong.”
Shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi told BBC News 24 the suggestion was unhelpful and said: “Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable.”
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had “an enormous amount of respect” for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.
He said: “Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another.”
Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the “implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous”. ”
PLUS - even a Muslim MP has all but called Williams a wacko - (from the Telegraph) “Khalid Mahmood, the Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said: “This is very misguided. There is no half-way house with this.
“What part of sharia law does he want? The sort that is practised in Saudi Arabia, which they are struggling to get away from?
“Muslims do not need special treatment or to be specially singled out. This would not contribute to community cohesion.”
This is just Williams going off the deep-end again … most CofE-ers here want him replaced.
Hmmm.... An ISLAMIC Empire? let's see - there are millions of American troops stationed around the world - in thousands of bases and on ships. We are presently occupying two Muslim nations, while our proxy Israel has recently bombed one Muslim nation - after invading another two summers ago. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. In the last 50 years, we've been involved in wars of aggression from South America to South Asia with a body count ranging in the millions. When we don't do the fighting ourselves, we're more than happy to pay and train our proxies to do this for us - which, of course, included - at one time, bin Laden and Saddam. We have a defense budget over $600 billion dollars and control the air, the land, the sea and outer space - and you guys are worried about a protest march of screaming islamics...
I have no doubt that one could get 100,000 Christians to support a rally in favor of injecting Christianity into our political and judicial systems.
Oh wait, they already have: it was called Justice Sunday.
So, in a democracy, is the principle that we 1)enshrine the beliefs of the majority into law, or 2) maintain a separation of church and state?
My point here is, the separation of church and state is necessary for all religions, not just Islam, and we should be making the general case.
I know Islam is scary to people, but from my perspective, any religious belief scares the hell out of me.
oh, and one last thing about the "Muslim Empire" - as of the 2005 census, Muslims make up only 3% of the UK - 71% self-identify as Christians. So, "Muslim Empire"??? Not gonna happen anytime soon, my friendly.
'My point here is, the separation of church and state is necessary for all religions, not just Islam, and we should be making the general case.'
Exactly. This isn't a Muslim saying this, it's the head of the Anglican church. Every Muslim MP swiftly condemned the remark.
The reaction in the UK wasn't to 'cave'. The reaction, universally, was that this man was an idiot and the religious, whatever their particular brand of idiocy, should keep away from politics. He may yet have to resign for this.
It would be great if American politics did a little more denouncing of faith and a little less pandering. And if a few prominent American churchmen resigned when they said appalling things.
PS: the person who invoked William Wallace as someone who fought for British values should probably look him up in a book.
Boy -- you woke up a lot of trolls... lol
I'm not going to bother responding to this latest bunch.
Is anyone else?
I'm not going to bother responding to this latest bunch.
Is anyone else?
ummm ... pointing out that people are denouncing the Archbishop's statement is being a troll?? myyyy, someone has thin skin.
Actually, Rog, other than stupid Steve who can't read something in context (wallace fought for his beliefs...DUH...), the point seems to be from a lot of these responders they agree with Brown as do many other people in government that the archbishop is exercising his right to openly be an idiot and they are against what the archbishop is proposing...
Unless I'm misunderstanding....
I don't know about you Miss Beth, but I'm getting sick of people writing to us from across the pond (or wherever they're from) telling us that everything's just fine in England, and not to worry -- while their country is dissolving all around them.
Basically, they seem to be telling us to mind our own business. But as I pointed out to some other complacent Brit in an earlier comment somewhere else, Britain's business has a nasty habit of soon becoming OUR business. Like that nasty little WWII business.
Sorry, but to this particular Yank, everything in Britain is definitely NOT all right. And a lot of your problems are -- once again -- headed this way.
Roger -
wow. maybe you should see someone to discuss these issues you have. or maybe the time would be better spent if you read a history book or 2 - WWII was the UK's fault??? the UK was the ONLY country fighting the Germans after the fall of Paris! good grief!!
and, maybe (just maybe) you get people weighing in to tell you the FACTS, so that you can get beyond the screaming-headline-HYPE.
with 71% of the country self-identifying as Christian, do you *honestly* believe Sharia Law is going to become the law of the land???
The point is the IDIOCY of the Archbishop of Canterbury to make such statements publicly.
Okay then - from a Brit NOT across the pond.
When I saw the Archbishop of Canterbury express those views, I was NOT surprised. What galls me, is my countrymen who insist everything is FINE! It so isn't, as Islam over-runs my homeland, and yes, I have done more than a few posts on that very issue..It is right there... I am despairing lately that my once GREAT Britain has no friggin clue what is going on..
And yes, the Archbishop is, as Gordon Brown states, free to express his opinions, BUT within the public arena when he speaks he IS not speaking as an individual with his own point of view. He IS a representative of the CofE...and his opinions can be taken as the CofE's official stance.
Here where I live now, we have various court challenges as groups try to impose Sharia law into our laws. I am so SICK of it.
OVER MY DEAD BODY! THIS is one Brit who will go down fighting to the end....
Sorry for the babbling. Today, I am so sick at heart with all the blinkered asses.. the evidence of what Islam intends to do (and is DOING) around the globe, is so obvious to me....I feel like I am living on another planet because so many refuse to see.
I am done for now.....
Debbie, excellent piece yourself on this.
Brat -
Fret not for your homeland - I am a US citizen living "across the pond" and am no closer to wearing a burkha than I was when lived in Atlanta.
In fact, CofE clergy are already calling for William's resignation:
"A senior Church of England clergyman called today for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, over his remarks supporting Sharia in England.
The call, from a long-standing member of the Church's governing body, the General Synod, demonstrated the strength of the backlash Dr Williams that faces from within his own Church — as well as from political and other faith leaders. "
You know, I just remembered...I don't recall the details, but this is similar to the Catholic Archbishop, I believe in Holland (?) calling for something similar between Catholics and muslims and the outcry the two faiths were incompatible.
The appeasers--Catholic Archbishop, Williams, etc., need to knock it off.
Miss Beth -
good recall (sa-LUTE)!!
what happened was the Netherlands Bishop said "why don't we ALL just call God 'Allah'" - sort of a "why can't we all just get along" - like that's the only difference between Muslim/Christianity/Judaism, etc. Then, backlash from all sides - he managed to p*** EVERYone off with that comment.
I don't think it was meant as appeasement ... just another example of people opening their mouth before their brain is in gear.
"just another example of people opening their mouth before their brain is in gear."
Without having the slightest idea of who you're talking to or what their background is, you nonetheless seem to have no problem offering condescending advice to "read history". Your country's going down the drain and you're giving us advice. Whew! Talk about arrogance.
Sorry Spree, but this ends my interest in this particular thread.
"And yet there are those who would say that those who think that there are Muslim extremist groups who are not intent upon world domination are paranoid and don't know what they are talking about."
Not to be too picky, but for purposes of clarification, don't you mean, "...those who think that there are Muslim extemist groups who ARE intent upon world domination are paranoid..."? Your original sentence seems convoluted; why would a Muslim extremist group not be intent on world dominaton?
Good catch, and it's corrected. Thankee.
There are a great many who think, and believe, that we are witnessing an attempt at a global Islamic empire.
And...what are your thoughts on it Bill T.? The evidence for us realists is overwhelming from appeasers giving in to islam worldwide (regardless of the minority percentage of them in any western population) to the amount of violence perpetrated by islam worldwide...
Yeah, we don't THINK AND BELIEVE it's happening, we see and KNOW it's happening.
And that whole appeasement thing doesn't work. That's been shown as a failure before (re: Chamberlain and Hitler). That's why a great, great number of us are restocking and resupplying ourselves with ammo....
Miss Beth, you said William Wallace was 'filled with British/UK pride and WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT'.
If you genuinely think that, next time you watch Braveheart, pay more attention, stay until the end and watch it with the sound up.
He was as filled with 'British Pride' as George Washington was in 1776.
'his opinions can be taken as the CofE's official stance'
No. The Brits went to a great deal of trouble to make sure he's not the Pope. His opinions have weight because his position, but you're dead wrong that it's now 'church policy' - just look at the reaction of the General Synod to what he said.
I return to my point. The Archbishop of Canterbury says something on the radio about how Muslim communities might be allowed to settle community disputes using Muslim methods, then there's three days of outcry and condemnation and everyone from the Prime Minister down saying he's barmy. Other bishops and archbishops are literally queuing up for the TV cameras to condemn what he's said.
Meanwhile, in America, there's a presidential candidate, a man being talked of as a potential VP, who said:
"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
If Huckabee becomes VP, America's the heartbeat of a 72 year old man away from being run by the Taliban, just a version of the Taliban that waves a cross instead of a crescent.
You think we don't know that Steve? And you think we're stupid enough to want that? Good grief, he hasn't even been nominated for VP yet, but you want to fear monger? America was built of freedom of religion, among other things, and while I am a Traditionalist Catholic I no more want a fundamentalist screwing with the Constitution than the next person.
So get off your self righteous soap box when you come onto this site, get off your sanctimonious preaching and act like an ordinary person instead of one of the elitist who thinks all who don't think as you do are beneath you intellectually.
GOT IT?
'GOT IT?'
It's not a question of you being 'beneath me intellectually'. I have no idea whether that's the case or not, and no psychological need to get a ruler out to check.
However ... if you think William Wallace was 'full of British pride', you're wrong. If you think that the reaction to the Archbishop's comments demonstrate Britain has 'caved' to religious extremism, you're wrong. Objectively, just-look-it-up-and-you'll-see, there's-no-argument-about-it wrong.
And if you think that the most pressing danger of religious extremism destroying the traditional American way of life is from Muslims, Europeans and leftists, you're not just wrong, you are 180 degrees off, the exact opposite of right. The threat - the genuine, imminent threat - is from the Christian, American Right.
It's not *me* fearmongering, it's the people who paint a picture of a world where Muslims are swarming into Western countries thanks to 'liberal' quislings.
There, very simply, are no actual places where this is happening. Even if you squint and exaggerate.
So it's people screaming 'it's going to happen here next' and 'buy ammo!' who are not just fearmongering, they're staring at the border at the exact moment they should be watching their back. I'm not caricaturing or making up straw men, I'm quoting people who've replied *on this page*.
Hooray!!! It took a couple of days, but I just KNEW someone would eventually drop the comparison with Chamberlain and Hitler. Congratulations!
"And that whole appeasement thing doesn't work. That's been shown as a failure before (re: Chamberlain and Hitler). That's why a great, great number of us are restocking and resupplying ourselves with ammo....
M | Homepage | 02.10.08 - 2:01 pm"
I call it the HobNob corollary to Godwin's Law - people with absolutely no understanding of history call ANYthing which smacks of diplomacy with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. M, please do yourself a favor and read a little about the events of 1914-1918, paying particular attention to the Battles of the Somme, Ypres and Verdun if you'd like a little perspective on why Chamberlain wasn't keen on sabre-rattling a mere 20 years later.
After you're done reading that, you may want to look up the Treaty of Versailles ... paying particular attention to the fact that the US signed it, too, and had just as much responsibility to contain Hitler's Germany as Britain did. Everyone loves to blame Chamberlain, but, BOY, the US sure was quiet when Hitler marched into Czechslovakia and Poland ...
Lastly, bringing the whole discussion back to the topic at hand ... I really can't believe the "stocking up on ammo" crowd still fears "a new muslim world order". If the events of the last 3 days (condemnation of the Archbishops comments and calls for his resignation) aren't proof to you that the world isn't going quietly into that good night, then I seriously question what WOULD constitute proof to you -- other than a mushroom cloud.
I'm a history major and emphasized on world war's one and two, bite me.
... and razor-sharp rhetorical skills, to boot.
Oh yes, Steve, it's those pesky Christians demanding appeasement at taxi stands in Minneapolis; it's Christians flying airplanes into buildings; it's Christians demanding special treatment in the way of foot baths and cafeterias at taxpayer expense in universities; it's Christians killing their daughters for becoming too westernized, and doing it in Canada and Texas; it's Christians who have stated as their objective they will dominate the world in the name of Allah; it's Christians who practice stoning of women, female genital mutilation, hanging gays and amputations....
Oh yes, Steve it's those pesky Christians who do all this in the name of their God Jesus, right?
I may be wrong on Wallace (since you seem to continue harping on it), but pull your head out of your ass on religion.
It ain't the Christians who are the biggest threat and if you had one ounce of intellectual honesty or one smidgen of wanting to learn the truth on your own, you would know that.
Grow up.
Hi Miss Beth.
I'm certainly not saying that Muslim extremism is a good thing. What I'm saying is that Christian extremism is just as bad. And that there are a lot more Christian fundamentalists, better organized, with more money, followers and political clout in America than there are Muslim fundamentalists.
There are Christians just as vocal, just as violent, just as demanding as Muslim groups in the US. If you're trying to build a case that Christian fundamentalists are into women's rights, gay rights and never abuse their kids, you're not going to get very far.
There is a medical procedure in America that is more dangerous for the doctors performing it than their patients.
Care to guess what it is, and why?
http://www.religioustolerance.or...rg/
abo_viol.htm
Religious fundamentalism is the problem, not the name the particular extremist puts on it. Christian fundamentalists share almost all their values, core scripture, ideology and methods with Muslim fundamentalists. And the main beliefs are simple ones: (1) spread fear that their culture is under threat from secularism and they're becoming an oppressed minority in their own country (2) the unsaveds' lives are expendable, even if they are civilians, kids or elderly.
It's not all Christians. Just as it's not all Muslims. It is a particular strain of literalist, extremist, politicized, organized religious zealot. Because if God's told you to do it, you're never going to stop.
If you were an American living in the US last year, you were more likely to be killed, injured or threatened by a devout Christian as a direct result of his beliefs than by any kind of Muslim for any reason.
Miss Beth-
Um, it's Christians who bombed the gay nightclubs and clinics in Atlanta and followed it up with the Olympic bombing. (btw - since you may not know the details about 3 of the Atlanta bombs - in each case, there was 1 small bomb which went off to draw EMS personnel followed up by a larger, more damaging bomb to hurt the police/ambulance workers - so, no, it wasn't just about homosexuality/abortion).
Let's not forget the "Christians" who shoot abortion providers and terrorize their children.
All I'm saying is that, please, before you sanctify Christianity too much, remember that there are sins of the past and present there, too.
Wow...such hate directed toward christians!
I am well aware of the dangers of any religious funamentalism--if you read above, Steve, I believe I stated my case of not wanting Huckabee's brand of fundamentalism shoved down my throat or changing the constitution just as much as the next person.
US in UK...provide me the link of christians terrorizing children. Or shut up about it. And the link about "christians shooting abortion providers"...date and link.
Christians are by no means perfect--there are criminals, abusers, murderers, etc. in Christianity as well as in the general, secular population. However, we prosecute those criminals--muslims get a pass.
Extremism is horrid, no matter what it's called. However, islam IS extreme, and had you been following several series ongoing at several places, you'd know that. Until there are more alleged moderate muslims standing up against the atrocities, they are all considered extremists from my point of view--the koran mandates the violence. If you don't like that way of my thinking, well, that's your right.
Also, US in UK---when were the last abortion/gay nightclub bombings by christians? Again, back yourself up, because my recollection is they were long ago and those doing it now are the muslims. Don't even try to snow me.
I will sanctify Christianity because of something apparently not being distinguished--it ain't the faith, it's the people claiming to be Christian. Christianity as a whole and as a faith does not sanctify nor preach these actions. Not the New Testament. The koran, however, does. So separate the faith from the people before telling me what to do or not to do. Christianity is NOT at fault--the people are. islam, conversely IS at fault and so are its followers. Important distinctions. Make them.
And Steve...I've never been out of the Continental US...and I live across the street from 2 fundamental islam families. Where do you live?
I've lived in the UK and Denmark, as well as the East Coast.
OK ...
'Until there are more alleged moderate muslims standing up against the atrocities, they are all considered extremists from my point of view--the koran mandates the violence.'
No. That is an extremely common view of Muslims in America, but it's objectively, demonstrably wrong.
Sorry to dump a load of links on you, but just read a few of them.
This isn't wishy-washy stuff. All of these links are either from big surveys, they're reports from Arab countries themselves, they have first hand sources or they contain good summaries.
People in Muslim countries are more keen on the church/state divide than Americans:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/
28762...Compatible.aspx
Muslim hardliners are condemned in the press even in places like Saudi:
http://arabnews.com/?page=7§...d=8&m=12&
y=2007
Muslim extremists are viewed by Muslims negatively and are a massive concern:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/dis...hp?
ReportID=248
There is widespread support for women in politics:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/22180...-
Countries.aspx
There are Muslim feminists and lively debate and discussion:
http://www.counterpunch.org/fawzia1.html
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/ar...?
parentid=80186
The media frequently ascribes Muslim motives to crimes, then doesn't retract the story when the full facts emerge:
http://afp.google.com/article/
AL...L2s1tnfnkzK_i4g
American attitudes to Muslims are often based on misapprehensions and plain ignorance:
http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/
musli...ble_insult_form
Muslim fundamentalism is just like Christian fundamentalism, and emerged at the same sort of time. It's a view held by a small proportion of people who see an increasingly tolerant, multicultural world and hate it. They prey on fear, mistrust and ignorance. They demonize their opponents - not other religions, usually, more often their 'soft', 'liberal', 'decadent' fellow countrymen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...h?
v=IAUDcmaJNWQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...h?
v=InW5vIc2xNQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=T...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...h?
v=tZaB9qDzxPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S...h?v=S-
lLpYmpQt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=u...feature=related
You're operating a double standard if all Muslims have to be accountable for the actions of any Muslim, but Christians who do bad things are only 'claiming to be Christians'.
You know that people have used the Bible to justify the most heinous acts and practices. You know that churches have done the most terrible things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=T...feature=related
You can't generalize about Muslims, any more than you can about Christians. Bin Laden is no more a typical Muslim just because he's a Muslim than Hitler was a typi
Steve, if you had looked around this site you would see at least half a dozen pieces THANKING Moderate Muslims when they stand up and speak out.
First look around before assuming and second, don't every preach to me about something I do on a regular basis PUBLICLY.
Clear?
Oops, word limit ... so:
You can't generalize about Muslims, any more than you can about Christians. Bin Laden is no more a typical Muslim just because he's a Muslim than Hitler was a typical Christian just because he was Christian.
Oh yes he was:
http://liberalslikechrist.org/
hi...lersbishops.gif
It would be really simple if the world was divided up into good people and bad people. Even simpler if the bad people all had different colored skin and lived abroad. And if every single one of them, even the infants, were all in on it. Then we could 'fight them over there so we didn't have to fight them here' without worrying.
The world isn't like that. That's what Bin Laden thinks the world is like. It's what a lot of Christian fundamentalists think the world is like. But that's not what the world is like.
Steve, it's obvious to you muslims are good and christians are bad--quit trying to convince me otherwise because it's not going to work.
I've seen too much footage of too much atrocity on the home ground of these people. You wanna kiss their ass and appease them, go ahead--I won't, ever.
I'm tired of christianity being put down as the root of all evil--you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but those that actually study the differences in the bible and the koran know differently. One advocates love and has "grown up and matured" over the years--the other is nothing but violence. End of story.
Keep your head in the sand--I have no further use for your secular, liberal, biased, islam loving/appeasing nonsense. They'll take your head as quickly as they will mine. I know what I stand for, though. Do you?
Just don't be surprised when your ass kissing them doesn't get the result you desire--you are infidel, just as i am.
LOLOL, well said Beth!
... and razor-sharp rhetorical skills, to boot.
mmmHobNobs | 02.11.08 - 10:41 am | #
No, knucklehead, I was on my way out the door to work this morning and my temper got the better of me after seeing your asinine comments.
Blunt, yes, diplomatic, no...I've been told that I'm as subtle as a brick through a window.
The comparison to Chamberlain dealing with Hitler stands, and it holds up. Don't like that? Tough. I've said my peace on it.
"Even simpler if the bad people all had different colored skin and lived abroad."
Interesting how the race card comes out and it wasn't a christian who played it...very interesting indeed....
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
The HobNob corollary: as any online discussion about Muslims grown longer, the probability of a comparison involving Chamberlain and Hitler approaches one ... usually by someone with no understanding of history.
(despite protestations of a degree in history with an emphasis on world wars 1 and 2)
Just because you use an analogy doesn't make it accurate.
'Steve, it's obvious to you muslims are good and christians are bad--quit trying to convince me otherwise because it's not going to work.'
You can't read what I actually wrote and get to that conclusion.
A *subset* of Christians pose just as much a threat as the *subset* of Muslims who exist and pose a threat and who are, yes, 'bad'.
Those Muslim fundamentalists will 'take the head' of other Muslims as easily as mine or yours. As you'd know if you'd checked those links. That's their main method. They've rarely attacked Americans - they've routinely terrorized Muslims.
The point: the vast majority of Muslims are not like that. The vast majority of Muslim nations are not like that. The Muslim fundamentalists are angry *because* their societies are becoming liberal, secular, tolerant and multicultural. Hmmm, wait, I've heard that somewhere before ...
'What you've seen' having 'never left the Continental US' are a few TV pictures. If you just saw the USA through the filter of the TV news, you'd think the entire population spent the whole time chasing each other in cars, waving guns at each other, dodging hurricanes and in court or at awards shows.
I've lined up links with facts, not opinion. Demonstrated my case. Your the one with your fingers in your ears, not me. You've basically just said 'it doesn't matter what you show me or what the facts are, I *know*'.
Well ... congratulations. You've taken the first step to becoming a fundamentalist. 'If reality clashes with my beliefs, it must be the world that's wrong'. Gosh, sure looks like reality has a liberal bias.
And another pointer: if you use the expression 'these people' in everyday conversation, you're playing the race card.
Hopefully someone else reading this thread has checked the links and thought about it.
I don't want to appease. I do want to know my enemy. Your problem at the moment is that, seven years after they attacked us, you're clearly absolutely clueless on that. The enemy are all Muslims, but not all Muslims are our enemy.
I've said what I wanted to. You've not listened. As I say, hopefully someone else has. So ... sit in your house, waiting for the Muslims to come over the hill and rape your cattle. I guess the rest of us will just have to get out there and win this one for you.
Miss Beth -
Please stop the "woe is me, I'm a Christian and everyone is attacking me" routine. It really grows wearisome. I was raised Catholic, have been educated in Catholic and Baptist schools and attended a Methodist church for a few years - so, hatred of Christianity? Please - that type of rhetoric is just pathetic.
To answer your questions ...
Eric Rudolph - a conservative Catholic - pleaded guilty to 4 terrorist attacks: the Olympic bombing, 2 clinic bombings (one in Atlanta and one in Birmingham) and the gay nightclub bombing in Atlanta. Here's his wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Eri..._Robert_Rudolph
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unaware of violence towards abortion providers and their families:
In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.
March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of the year before. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
June 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot outside of another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings, received a death sentence, and was executed September 3, 2003.
December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in a clinic attack in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International, was arrested and confessed to the killings. He committed suicide in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama died when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot dead at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.
The attempted murders were:
August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence.
June 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John B
rats. word limit. as I was saying:
June 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the same-day shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
December 18, 1996: Dr. Calvin Jackson of New Orleans, Louisiana was stabbed 15 times, losing 4 pints of blood. Donald Cooper was charged with second-degree attempted murder and sentenced to 20 years.
October 28, 1997: A physician whose name has not been revealed was shot in his home in Rochester, New York.
January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
September 11, 2006 David McMenemy attempted a suicide bombing of a women's clinic in Davenport, Iowa after scouting targets throughout the Midwest. It was later revealed that the targeted clinic did not perform or make referrals for abortions.
Additionally, there are numerous incidents of property damage, anthrax threats, arson and property crime. One of the leading groups for this kind of activity is the Army of God.
Lastly, the "Nurenberg Files" website. "The Nuremberg Files" Web site lists about 200 abortion providers under the heading of "baby butchers." And the site invites readers to send in such personal details as the doctors' home addresses, license plate numbers and the names of their children.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9902/0...web.verdict.03/
All done in the name of God. Contrary to what you think, I am not saying that Christianity is the root of all evil. I do think, however, that *some* of its practitioners cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they want to practice -- for instance, ignoring pretty much all of the New Testament (especially the "love your neighbor as yourself" bit) and emphasizing the laws mentioned in Leviticus.
Hobnob, you assume too much. I wasn't discussing anything with you...
Steve, USinUK, do either of you really, really think that anyone is taking the time to read those long rambling rants? The only reason that they're not gone too is because they didn't take UP three entire postings...
Your statement about Chamberlain and Hitler wasn't directed to anyone in particular - so, yeah, I shot it down.
sorry if it smarts a bit. look at it as a learning opportunity.
Again, you assume too much. You're wrong. And I'm off to work. Press it further and I'm sure Spree will show you her OWN research on the appeasement issue with Chamberlain and Hitler.
We're obviously not going to agree on this, I have nothing further to say to you.
Have a nice life.
"Steve, USinUK, do either of you really, really think that anyone is taking the time to read those long rambling rants?"
It's called "supporting your argument." You should try it sometime.
Miss Beth asked me a question and asked for details, so I provided them (with links, per her request). I'm sorry it's too long for your short attention span.
'Steve, USinUK, do either of you really, really think that anyone is taking the time to read those long rambling rants?'
Look ... simple rule of thumb here: any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I may be wrong ... but I've got evidence for what I believe, and I've shared it with you. USinUK's done the same.
I'm not going to convince you ... but like I say, think about that: I present facts, those facts disprove what you believe, so you decide it's reality that's got it wrong.
Now get your mommy to help you look up 'delusional' in the dictionary.
I don't think I have all the right answers. So I look for them. And if the facts don't fit the theory, I'll change my theory. So show me the evidence that'll make me change my mind.
All evidence has been presented, problem with people like you is if you don't like the facts, you try to "spin them"...doesn't work here pal, head back to Daily Kos where they will believe your idiocy.
No Steve, what you have proven is you must degenerate into insults, name calling and pulling the race card, all while keeping your head firmly implanted in your derriere.
MSM media doesn't interest me, nor does muslim propaganda. Get off your lazy butt and do some research from the real places, like the koran, CAIR, etc.
US in UK, thank you for the information--yes, I was well aware of everything in the 90's, as most people were. I was not aware of the ONE INCIDENT YOU CITE from 2006. In other words, nothing relatively recent, and certainly not on a level with the muslim bombings.
While I am virulently anti-abortion, I still don't think these fanatics should have gone to the lengths they did and they were rightly punished.
And, you forget, I said separate the faith from the person. You missed that.
I'm no more convinced of the "divinity" of the "Army of God" as I am of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Fact is this--islam is violence personified by its own mandates. It's not a small percentage of the population, it is permeated throughout by it's own holy book. Convince me otherwise. I dare you.
Besides, it's "fashionable" to label Christianity as equivalent to islam...dig below the hype and the feel good rhetoric. Nothing could be further from the truth and to face the reality of something does not make one a fundamentalist, but a realist.
'Fact is this--islam is violence personified by its own mandates. Convince me otherwise. I dare you.'
OK ... look, against my better judgment, I'll try to. I'll try not to call anyone names, I'll do my best not to spin.
A lot of 'Muslim' countries are becoming increasingly secular, liberal, tolerant and multicultural. They are *abandoning* their religion, or at least the strictest interpretations of it. They are making huge strides with women's rights. Places like Algeria and Morocco and Turkey and Indonesia have abandoned the death penalty. Most are democratic, and the 'religious' parties jostle with the secular ones.
That's not even a slightly spun or controversial statement. Look it up if you don't believe me. Or go there. Australians love going to Indonesia, same as Americans love going to Hawaii or the Caribbean. It's relaxed, hedonistic, exotic and fun.
It's also the most populous Muslim country in the world.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worl...indonesia/bali/
The terrorists are angry BECAUSE of this.
This is the parallel with Christian fundamentalists. The whole world is a more tolerant, diverse place these days. Fundamentalists see this as a problem - as undermining traditional values. They talk about 'secularism' and 'liberals' and 'materialism'. They want their country to be isolationist, they want religion to play a bigger role in politics. They often believe in a literal reading of their holy book, and if it contradicts science, they say it's science that's wrong.
OK ... again, I don't think there's anything there that's too controversial.
Watch the link I posted before. It's a television documentary with newsreel footage, names and dates. Just watch it. If it's spin or too mainstream media or whatever ... well, you can only decide that if you actually watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...h?
v=IAUDcmaJNWQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...h?
v=InW5vIc2xNQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=T...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...h?
v=tZaB9qDzxPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S...h?v=S-
lLpYmpQt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=u...feature=related
It is precisely *because* countries like Egypt and Pakistan and Indonesia have become more secular that the Muslim fundamentalists started their campaigns. When they started, they thought the masses would agree with them - and when it turned out the masses preferred Western music and girls in skirts, that's the precise point the campaign became a terrorist one aimed at civilians. And for twenty years the brand of terrorists who flew the planes on 9-11 concentrated entirely on Muslim countries, assassinating moderates, terrorizing civilian populations. Only in Afghanistan did they gain any political power, and that was because the Soviet Union had invaded and they were part of the resistance.
Plain and simple fact: there are plenty of Muslim countries, like Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt, which are demo
Plain and simple fact: there are plenty of Muslim countries, like Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt, which are democracies. And the Muslim fundamentalists stood for election and got tiny numbers of votes - about as many as the KKK or Westboro Baptist people would if they stood for office in the USA. The ordinary people of those countries hate them.
Now ... OK. I doubt you're convinced. What sort of evidence would you like? This is a genuine offer - I will find websites, recommend books, point you to surveys or interviews or whatever it is would be best.
As I say, start by watching that video. Even if you disagree, you'll have a clearer idea of what I'm saying and what I'm not saying. I may be wrong ... in which case, show me how and where.
I will grant you there is a huge backlash from most of the country's you mention regarding the people wanting "relaxed" sharia.
The fact remains, though, sharia is on the rise in traditionally western countries--the UK, the Netherlands, the EU, Canada--more and more of the young are demanding sharia. Further, those who flew their planes into our buildings did NOT concentrate just on muslims for the previous 20 years--go back to 1979 and Iran and there's ahmadinejad as one of the hostage takers of OUR embassy. That's a fallacious statement and ignores all the attacks on US and OUR properties that previous administrations ignored, hoping they'd go away, and further emboldening the muslims.
And, while you way the ordinary people in these countries hate the fundamentalists (and most do, I'm sure), why then do they keep voting them into power, Hamas and Ahmadinejad just for 2 examples?
Look at the surveys of muslim youth here in the united states who state while they are american they want sharia law.
You can't keep ignoring it's rise, particularly in young people, no matter how much you may want to.
'Further, those who flew their planes into our buildings did NOT concentrate just on muslims for the previous 20 years'
Sorry, I was unclear - they started attacking US targets in the nineties. Particularly the 1993 WTC attack and the 1998 embassy bombings.
Throughout the sixties, seventies and eighties, it was violence within Muslim countries, directed at moderate Muslims and civilians.
'The fact remains, though, sharia is on the rise in traditionally western countries--the UK, the Netherlands, the EU, Canada--more and more of the young are demanding sharia.'
I think you're getting two things mixed up there: young people wanting and countries giving. The moral of the Rowan Williams controversy is that there's no way, at all, that even modest concessions will be made in the UK.
There is a danger in tolerance, I admit that. Religion, in particular, often gets a free pass - religious people say the most awful things, but because it's motivated by 'faith' or 'tradition' it's excused.
' -go back to 1979 and Iran and there's ahmadinejad as one of the hostage takers of OUR embassy.'
... well, that's disputed, and by people with good reason not to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
4626081.stm
'And, while you way the ordinary people in these countries hate the fundamentalists (and most do, I'm sure), why then do they keep voting them into power, Hamas and Ahmadinejad just for 2 examples?'
First of all - note that they were *voted* in. It's democracy. It's not the result we'd have wanted, but these are democratic countries, and that's something.
The Iranian result was, surely, because of the Americans invading the next door country. If China invade Mexico this year, that's going to affect the Presidential election here! He's seen as a clown in his own country.
Hamas ... well, again Palestine is one of the poorest, least stable places in the world. In extreme circumstances, you get people turning to extreme solutions.
Neither Iran or Palestine, in modern times, anyway, have been moderate places. They are exceptions. Not the only exceptions, but for a balanced picture, look at Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco.
There is dangerous Muslim extremism, and - as you say - particularly among young men. Angry, poor, poorly-educated people who feel threatened will be vulnerable to people preaching simple 'us and them' pictures of the world, particularly when there's not a free press. That's certainly not to excuse it, or even to fully explain it. I think you eliminate it by building schools, not bombing them, though.
Having fun yet Beth with the morons patrol?
Actually Spree, I just got home from my daughter's softball game. And I see the talking points are out in force.
Steve, you ARE spinning whether you admit it or not.
Those who flew the planes into the buildings were not poor, uneducated men. They had nothing to be "angry" about, other than their religion.
All the bombings of our barracks around the world were carried out by muslims. Not just the 90's, but back into the 70's and on. Oh and let's not forget 1972 Munich.
Palestine? I have repeatedly asked for proof of Palestine's proof of ownership to the land and their pedigree, if you will, proving they are a nationality. There is none, nor has any been forthcoming, just vitriol about how racist and biased I am for asking for proof. There is no Palestine homeland, there are no palestinians, they are arabs/muslims and the land is Israel's. Prove otherwise.
There is no dispute as to ahmadinejad's role in the 1979 embassy hostage crisis. None. Again, muslims.
There is no such thing as muslim extremism. It is islam, period. You have not shown me one thing that you haven't spun with the liberal, feel good spin or spin by liberal media. You're skirting dangerously close to the blame america first and foremost attitude as well.
In the united states and other western nations, these so called "extremists", "angry young men", whatever, have access to education and free press. To state otherwise is a strawman.
As far as religion getting a free pass, if it's Christianity, no, it doesn't and the ACLU files are full of examples. The only one getting a free pass is islam. Again, prove otherwise.
You state ordinary people don't want the extremists in and I point out they keep voting them in and you spin to democracy. Sure, it is democracy--but it also shows ordinary people do want the extremists in. You can't have it both ways.
There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING redeeming about islam. I have seen nothing to change my mind and way to much to have made my mind up. At least the Bible has a message of hope--the koran has nothing but violence and hate and any 'true" muslim follows the koran.
I'm done. You can reach out to the barbarians, you can appease them, you can defend them all you like. I prefer to see them as they are--7th century zealots who have stated their agenda is world domination and nothing less. Based on their actions, I tend to believe them over you.
Well, I did say I was trying against my better judgment ...
'There is no dispute as to ahmadinejad's role in the 1979 embassy hostage crisis. None.'
... but you didn't even click on one link.
You're wrong.
Let's get this absolutely one-syllable word clear: I don't know if he was there or not.
But I do know, 100% that you're wrong: because you say there isn't a dispute, and there *is* a dispute. That doesn't mean he wasn't there, it means it's not 100% certain he was.
But you've not even said 'those people are liars' or 'I trust my President more than some Iranian' you've jumped to 'there's no dispute'.
There's a dispute.
And this is the problem all along. Your ... black and white, no nuance, I-don't-need-facts-when-I-have-my-opinion thinking.
'I have repeatedly asked for proof of Palestine's proof of ownership to the land and their pedigree'
Bully for you. The issue is not that you, Miss Beth, sitting in your home, having never left the USA, want the Palestinians to find their receipt. The point, again, is not whether you think it's a dispute. People do dispute it, whether you like that or not.
These issues are complicated, nuanced and subtle. And you might have a complicated, nuanced and subtle mind, but you sure as hell don't demonstrate that here.
I'm done too. I've made my case, had my say, presented my evidence. You say you wanted to be convinced, you didn't even look. So you ... lied.
As I say, people like you won't protect America. There's a quote at the top of this page about 'paying any price' ... you won't even pay the price of clicking on a hyperlink. You literally didn't lift a finger.
That's fine. Sit back, don't worry about it.
Spree -
calling people having a civil discussion "morons" ??? ... nice. how very grown-up of you.
Both Steve and I have been civil with Miss Beth - no name calling, no snottiness - just facts and reasonable discussion.
Sorry to see you're not up to the same.
Miss Beth -
There have been other incidents of abortion-related violence in the 2000s, but, fortunately, actions such as RICO suits, which has bankrupted some of the more violent anti-choice organizations, have put a damper on them. You asked me for incidents of murder and intimidation of doctors' families - I provided it. If you'd like more recent indicents of violence, I'm happy to do that, too.
As for the people active in that type of "protest" not being "as bad as the Muslims" - I don't believe God has a sliding scale of sin. Murdering (or trying to murder) 1 person is just as bad as flying a plane into a building and murdering 3,000. And I know, in your heart of hearts, you believe that, too. Ask a priest - he'll tell you the same.
As far as separating the person from the religion - I completely agree with you there, too. My point is that, just as the jihadists/terrorists wrap themselves up in the Koran to justify their actions, so do the "militant" Christians wrap themselves up in the Bible. I no more judge all of Christianity by our fundamentalist whack-jobs than I judge the Muslim religion by theirs.
Personally, I was taught (and believe) that Jesus was the New Covenant, rendering the laws of the Old Testament moot. However, there are a LOT of people who still like to cite the OT as the word of God, and, therefore, justification for laws (even violence) against homosexuality, etc. You say that the Koran is violent? Try reading the OT, sometime (as I mentioned before, I went to a Baptist school - they just loved the OT).
And, again, that's not *equating* the two religions - just an attempt to make the point that people will use anything to justify their desired ends.
Commenting by HaloScan
