Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. What kind of religious grudges were Christians holding in the 15th-18th centuries?
Like I said earlier in the thread -- bringing up events from centuries ago isn't relevant to today. Are they doing it today? Did we have the scientific understanding and practical info sources back then that we did today? It was such a different time and really not comparable to today from a knowledge and scientific standpoint.
But the much larger error you make -- you seem to suggest religions evolve upward along a set timeline. Not true. There are many instances of middle eastern governments actually regressing and Islam becoming more -- not less -- radicalized and restrictive of freedoms.
So using your standard, McVeigh was justified in what he did because Ruby Ridge and Waco happened just a few years before his attack on a government building not allowing him the 600 years he needed to let it go.
You know... we can go back and actually read what I actually said, as opposed to the voices in your head.
Islam is the "right" in places like Iran and Egypt. Islam is a conservative right-wing ideology. What you are confusing there appears to be the "secular right." When the US right becomes secular (rather than the limp shadow of radical Islam they are today) perhaps your analogy might deserve more attention.
The left simply has a broader view, one that includes less whinging and hand-wringing. Islam is not an existential threat to the United States.
It reminds me of WWII China. Chiang Kai Shek repeatedly tried to convince the US government that (in his words) "The Japanese are a disease of the skin. The Communists are a disease of the heart." We wouldn't listen to him... and history proved him right in 1949.
Islam is a disease of the skin. It pales in comparison to any number of more dangerous domestic threats. For example, I am always astounded when the US right-wing asserts that in order to defeat radical Islam, we must become more like them. It is not the Afghan Taliban that are a threat to our liberty. It is the American Taliban that risks turning us into a former world power.
The Shah I guess then was the moderate who was despised by the Left (communists, secularists) and the hard right (Islamist). Both groups worked together to overthrow the Shah and once the dust cleared the Islamist purged the Left. Same story in Egypt.
No the threat to our liberty is liberals. They insist on importing alien cultures hostile to America by the millions. So in response to the violence the minions of the Left commit the Right sometimes over reaches. The Right at least is acting nobly to protect the country and the future. the Left is simply about obstruction. Limit Muslim migration? Nope can't do that because it's unfair, besides not ALL Muslims are terrorist.
I'm not willing to sacrifice people so liberals can live in smugness about how righteous they think they are while living in homogeneous suburbs.
Like I said earlier in the thread -- bringing up events from centuries ago isn't relevant to today. Are they doing it today? Did we have the scientific understanding and practical info sources back then that we did today? It was such a different time and really not comparable to today from a knowledge and scientific standpoint.
But the much larger error you make -- you seem to suggest religions evolve upward along a set timeline. Not true. There are many instances of middle eastern governments actually regressing and Islam becoming more -- not less -- radicalized and restrictive of freedoms.
An example would be Egypt. In the 1960s-1980s Egyptian women wore modern Western clothing. Today they are covered up in burkas, can't go to beaches where men are present, have their genitals mutilated etc. Turkey also was very modern and secular until recently where they took a hard turn towards an Islamic state. Syria will soon do the same thing when the Syrian rebels take over. If anything the trend for the entire region in recent years is regressing.
Like I said earlier in the thread -- bringing up events from centuries ago isn't relevant to today.
Nonsense. Do we really need to start spouting aphorisms like, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it?" Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr
Are they doing it today? Did we have the scientific understanding and practical info sources back then that we did today? It was such a different time and really not comparable to today from a knowledge and scientific standpoint.
It was a different absolute time. It is not a different relative time. So the solution for Islamic atrocity will almost certainly be the same as the solution for previous Christian atrocity: Apostasy, atheism and agnosticism.
As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "It is not their love of humanity but the impotence of their love of humanity that prevents today’s Christians—from burning us."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr
An even larger error you make -- you seem to suggest religions evolve upward along a set timeline. Not true. There are many instances of middle eastern governments actually regressing and Islam becoming more -- not less -- radicalized and restrictive of freedoms.
I make no such error, and actually count on the acceleration afforded by modern technology to hopefully secularize the Muslim world faster than it was able to secularize the Christian one. But as to parallels, Islam is too close to its mother religion of Christianity to follow any path that strays too far from that example. There are legion examples of Christian "revivalism" too.
Remember... Islam began as a heretical Christian cult. Every single one of Islam's most horrific characteristics was a direct inheritance from its mother faith. They remain the only two exclusive monotheisms on the planet, and across all of history it is exclusive monotheism that has engendered more atrocity than any other ideology... especially when accounting for the evolution of the technologies of death. The very concept of violent religious intolerance is an invention of Christianity, and has spread to other religions either by direct inheritance in the case of Islam, or defensive infection in the cases of modern Hinduism and Judaism.
The single worst response we can have in the west to the threat of radical Islam is to become more like them.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-21-2013 at 11:10 AM..
Bill Maher made a comment several weeks ago criticizing the high taxes in California. It wouldn't shock me if he is becoming a conservatve. Many conservatives were liberal at one time.
If he has become conservative he wil hide it the best he can as it would kill his career. This could have been a slip up.
The Shah I guess then was the moderate who was despised by the Left (communists, secularists) and the hard right (Islamist).
No. He was the secular right wing conservative who was despised by the left and religious right. It also didn't help that he was an oppressive dictator who ran a police state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
No the threat to our liberty is liberals. They insist on importing alien cultures hostile to America by the millions. So in response to the violence the minions of the Left commit the Right sometimes over reaches. The Right at least is acting nobly to protect the country and the future. the Left is simply about obstruction. Limit Muslim migration? Nope can't do that because it's unfair, besides not ALL Muslims are terrorist.
I make no charges that the right is not acting nobly. I only accuse them of acting stupidly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
I'm not willing to sacrifice people so liberals can live in smugness about how righteous they think they are while living in homogeneous suburbs.
Sure you are. Your comments here prove that. You are anxious to sacrifice anybody who is not like you.
Nonsense. Do we really need to start spouting aphorisms like, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it?" Really?
It was a different absolute time. It is not a different relative time. So the solution for Islamic atrocity will almost certainly be the same as the solution for previous Christian atrocity: Apostasy, atheism and agnosticism.
As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "It is not their love of humanity but the impotence of their love of humanity that prevents today’s Christians—from burning us."
I make no such error, and actually count on the acceleration afforded by modern technology to hopefully secularize the Muslim world faster than it was able to secularize the Christian one. But as to parallels, Islam is too close to its mother religion of Christianity to follow any path that strays too far from that example.
Remember... Islam began as a heretical Christian cult. Every single one of Islam's most horrific characteristics was a direct inheritance from its mother faith. They remain the only two exclusive monotheisms on the planet, and across all of history it is exclusive monotheism that has engendered more atrocity than any other ideology... especially when accounting for the evolution of the technologies of death. The very concept of violent religious intolerance is an invention of Christianity, and has spread to other religions either by direct inheritance in the case of Islam, or defensive infection in the cases of modern Hinduism and Judaism.
The single worst response we can have in the west to the threat of radical Islam is to become more like them.
No it did not. It came out of an Arab pagan "moon-god" religion which is why Arabs go up on their roofs and worship the moon and Ramadan is all about the moon -- as is their religious symbol of the crescent moon.
No where in Christianity or Judaism is the moon revered as it is in Islam. Allah is a moon-god.
Even Cat Stevens felt that moon god thing when he sang about being followed by a moon shadow -- and he's now hooked on that moon-god cult.
Nonsense. Do we really need to start spouting aphorisms like, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it?" Really?
It was a different absolute time. It is not a different relative time. So the solution for Islamic atrocity will almost certainly be the same as the solution for previous Christian atrocity: Apostasy, atheism and agnosticism.
As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "It is not their love of humanity but the impotence of their love of humanity that prevents today’s Christians—from burning us."
I make no such error, and actually count on the acceleration afforded by modern technology to hopefully secularize the Muslim world faster than it was able to secularize the Christian one. But as to parallels, Islam is too close to its mother religion of Christianity to follow any path that strays too far from that example. There are legion examples of Christian "revivalism" too.
Remember... Islam began as a heretical Christian cult. Every single one of Islam's most horrific characteristics was a direct inheritance from its mother faith. They remain the only two exclusive monotheisms on the planet, and across all of history it is exclusive monotheism that has engendered more atrocity than any other ideology... especially when accounting for the evolution of the technologies of death. The very concept of violent religious intolerance is an invention of Christianity, and has spread to other religions either by direct inheritance in the case of Islam, or defensive infection in the cases of modern Hinduism and Judaism.
The single worst response we can have in the west to the threat of radical Islam is to become more like them.
It's hard to believe that such a liberal like Maher would see the difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam is very much like Nazism only with a god. Christinas support Israel, Muslims what Israel annihalated and it's "death to all Jews" for the Muslims.
Liberals almost always love Islam but it's because they hate Christians and Jews, not so much that they like Islam.
Do you read your own posts? Being as that most liberals are either Christians or Jews, how could your generalization make sense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
