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.
TX Boomerang: Had he bombed the Pentagon or other govt institutions during war, the liberals would be very interested in acquiring him.
I'm sure your religious and political views are complicated. And I have complete respect for those views, but I think it's appropriate to challenge statements like the one you made above. If you think that liberals are pretty reasonable, why did you make the above statement? Remarks like that don't promote conversation and reasonable discussion, they incite name-calling and negativity. They cause people to become entrenched in their positions, and that leads to extremism. That's all I'm saying.
I made the statement because isolated incidents like Eric Rudolph become a rallying cry to justify a ridiculous thread title equating Southern Baptist to the Taliban. So I injected a bit of sarcasm that was apparently missed by those reading the thread in regards to William Ayers being viewed in a pretty positive light by a fairly large number of people, mostly liberals ("mostly liberals who view him positively" is not the same as saying "most liberals view him positively", it means out of however many people view him favorably, liberals most likely make up the larger percentage)
It wasn't a blanket sweep, it was sarcasm showing the irony of doing such a ridiculous comparison.
Eric Rudolph does not at all represent the average Southern Baptist, but rather a very tiny fringe that is probably less than .01% of fundamentalist Christians. The Taliban however, openly ruled with torture and execution in public for dozens upon dozens of their list of offenses.
Liberals bomb buildings? You are really losing me here. Is there some new information available that all liberals bomb buildings? If not, I don't get your point.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? YOU stated that the liberals would want someone who bombed buildings. YOU implied that the liberals looked favorably upon people who bombed government institutions. YOU typed
"Had he bombed the Pentagon or other govt institutions during war, the liberals would be very interested in acquiring him." Those were YOUR words, they were meant to get a response, now you don't understand the response you got?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? YOU stated that the liberals would want someone who bombed buildings. YOU implied that the liberals looked favorably upon people who bombed government institutions. YOU typed
"Had he bombed the Pentagon or other govt institutions during war, the liberals would be very interested in acquiring him." Those were YOUR words, they were meant to get a response, now you don't understand the response you got?
What I don't understand is when people do not understand sarcasm and irony. What happened when I posted up some pics of the things the Taliban and extremist Muslims do? I had a picture of Eric Rudolph posted as a reply. What did he do? He set a bomb because he did not like the way something was going. Trying to tie Southern Baptist and Christian Fundamentalist to him is beyond lame. So I used Ayers to show how that same type of thinking would look if applied to INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE who have committed dispicable crimes. And then I was told that I fall in line with dictatorships because I use sarcasm in my post on a political forum.
I made the statement because isolated incidents like Eric Rudolph become a rallying cry to justify a ridiculous thread title equating Southern Baptist to the Taliban. So I injected a bit of sarcasm that was apparently missed by those reading the thread in regards to William Ayers being viewed in a pretty positive light by a fairly large number of people, mostly liberals.
It wasn't a blanket sweep, it was sarcasm showing the irony of doing such a ridiculous comparison.
Eric Rudolph does not at all represent the average Southern Baptist, but rather a very tiny fringe that is probably less than .01% of fundamentalist Christians. The Taliban however, openly ruled with torture and execution in public for dozens upon dozens of their list of offenses.
The thread title was meant to be provocative. Your bit of sarcasm was meant to be provocative. Eric Rudolph is a bad person, and he certainly doesn't represent the average Southern Baptist. While Rudolph is an example of extremism gone bad, it isn't extremism gone bad that is worrisome. It's extremism, period. Extremism that promotes intolerance, and hate, and is the soil that produces people like Eric Rudolph or Mr Phelps. Maybe one day we'll capture Osama Bin Laden. We've taken down numerous other Al Qaeda leaders. We've fought the Taliban and won control, albeit a tenuous control, of Afghanistan, but we haven't stopped extremism. There is always another Eric Rudolph waiting in the wings, as long as we ignore the extremism that produced him and all the others that think the extremist way. That their church is the only true church, their dogma the true faith, their path the only one that leads to heaven. It allows extremists to look on everyone else as "others", "non-believers", "infidels". The "others" are going to hell anyway, so killing them doesn't matter. The mission is to bring "others" into the fold, to make them see the truth. The Taliban does it, and so do some fundamentalist Christians. Do you think that the Taliban leaders want to convert people because they don't believe they have found the truth? They live in a harsh world, and they think their values are under attack by the rest of the world. They see any tolerance for other beliefs as an attack on their religion. When fundamentalists boycott a store because it says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", a store that serves people who aren't Christian and is only trying to be tolerant for other beliefs, those Christians boycott because they think their values are under attack. There is a parity, even if the parity is blurred because of cultural differences. The Taliban thrives in a very different culture, a world far removed from ours. But the Taliban is struggling with maintaining the religious values it devoutly believes will lead its practicioners to heaven. Extremism doesn't have just one face, extremism doesn't always horrify us with its brutality. But extremism and intolerance go hand in hand. Rudolph and Phelps may be exceptional in the way they behave, the acts they've committed, but they weren't imported from abroad, they grew here in the U.S. A home-grown extremism that we as Americans are complacent about may be much more harmful in the end than an extremism halfway around the world.
The thread title was meant to be provocative. Your bit of sarcasm was meant to be provocative. Eric Rudolph is a bad person, and he certainly doesn't represent the average Southern Baptist. While Rudolph is an example of extremism gone bad, it isn't extremism gone bad that is worrisome. It's extremism, period. Extremism that promotes intolerance, and hate, and is the soil that produces people like Eric Rudolph or Mr Phelps. Maybe one day we'll capture Osama Bin Laden. We've taken down numerous other Al Qaeda leaders. We've fought the Taliban and won control, albeit a tenuous control, of Afghanistan, but we haven't stopped extremism. There is always another Eric Rudolph waiting in the wings, as long as we ignore the extremism that produced him and all the others that think the extremist way. That their church is the only true church, their dogma the true faith, their path the only one that leads to heaven. It allows extremists to look on everyone else as "others", "non-believers", "infidels". The "others" are going to hell anyway, so killing them doesn't matter. The mission is to bring "others" into the fold, to make them see the truth. The Taliban does it, and so do some fundamentalist Christians. Do you think that the Taliban leaders want to convert people because they don't believe they have found the truth? They live in a harsh world, and they think their values are under attack by the rest of the world. They see any tolerance for other beliefs as an attack on their religion. When fundamentalists boycott a store because it says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", a store that serves people who aren't Christian and is only trying to be tolerant for other beliefs, those Christians boycott because they think their values are under attack. There is a parity, even if the parity is blurred because of cultural differences. The Taliban thrives in a very different culture, a world far removed from ours. But the Taliban is struggling with maintaining the religious values it devoutly believes will lead its practicioners to heaven. Extremism doesn't have just one face, extremism doesn't always horrify us with its brutality. But extremism and intolerance go hand in hand. Rudolph and Phelps may be exceptional in the way they behave, the acts they've committed, but they weren't imported from abroad, they grew here in the U.S. A home-grown extremism that we as Americans are complacent about may be much more harmful in the end than an extremism halfway around the world.
Big difference. Violence is not tolerated here. Regardless of the motive, violence is prosecuted. Even the Phelps nuts do not use violence. They are simply EXTREMELY loud, rude, hateful, and annoying. Last time I saw them in the news, it was business as usual, they were telling people that God was going to kill them, destroy America, etc, they were not saying they would do that or advocating humans to do that. There are groups from all kinds of different beliefs, agendas, etc who act that way. Violence is not tolerable from any group.
As for Christians "protesting" stores not using "Christmas" I consider that very petty, annoying, and useless, although I've only heard of it and never seen it happen. However, they are just as much in their rights as someone protesting the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, or any of the hundreds of reasons people protest across this country. I don't consider myself in a position to rule their actions as to extreme to be allowable. So long as their ways of protest do not involve destruction or violence, they are perfectly free to do so regardless of how inflexible their views are.
Big difference. Violence is not tolerated here. Regardless of the motive, violence is prosecuted. Even the Phelps nuts do not use violence. They are simply EXTREMELY loud, rude, hateful, and annoying. Last time I saw them in the news, it was business as usual, they were telling people that God was going to kill them, destroy America, etc, they were not saying they would do that or advocating humans to do that. There are groups from all kinds of different beliefs, agendas, etc who act that way. Violence is not tolerable from any group.
As for Christians "protesting" stores not using "Christmas" I consider that very petty, annoying, and useless, although I've only heard of it and never seen it happen. However, they are just as much in their rights as someone protesting the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, or any of the hundreds of reasons people protest across this country. I don't consider myself in a position to rule their actions as to extreme to be allowable. So long as their ways of protest do not involve destruction or violence, they are perfectly free to do so regardless of how inflexible their views are.
You're right. The Taliban operates in a very different culture, halfway around the world. They push their society to its limits in the effort to enforce their ideology.
We live in a different culture. The limits are different, the laws are different. Phelps and his group push them right to the limit. People in our society hate Phelps for the things he does. And there are people in Afghanistan that hate the Taliban, hate it for its treatment of women, hate it for its brutality, hate it for its hypocrisy. (Because supporting the opium trade is a violation of their beliefs.)
And if in this country we have freedom of religion, we have to tolerate that this sometimes will mean extremism. But that doesn't mean that we can't try to learn more about the roots of extremism. That we shouldn't discuss extremism in America and where it flourishes and why. The title of this thread was provocative, it was meant to provoke just the kind of discussion we are having. Does the South have more religious fundamentalism than the rest of the country? What role does politics play in that, and what role does fundamentalism play in politics? Do history and poverty have roles in the development of fundamentalism, and do those factors influence the direction of fundamentalism? It's an interesting topic.
You're right. The Taliban operates in a very different culture, halfway around the world. They push their society to its limits in the effort to enforce their ideology.
We live in a different culture. The limits are different, the laws are different. Phelps and his group push them right to the limit. People in our society hate Phelps for the things he does. And there are people in Afghanistan that hate the Taliban, hate it for its treatment of women, hate it for its brutality, hate it for its hypocrisy. (Because supporting the opium trade is a violation of their beliefs.)
And if in this country we have freedom of religion, we have to tolerate that this sometimes will mean extremism. But that doesn't mean that we can't try to learn more about the roots of extremism. That we shouldn't discuss extremism in America and where it flourishes and why. The title of this thread was provocative, it was meant to provoke just the kind of discussion we are having. Does the South have more religious fundamentalism than the rest of the country? What role does politics play in that, and what role does fundamentalism play in politics? Do history and poverty have roles in the development of fundamentalism, and do those factors influence the direction of fundamentalism? It's an interesting topic.
And 10-20 posts later, we end up at sort of a neutral agreement.
That goes to show the American thought process. When some will compare a terrorist organization who literally will kill you if you don't believe to an organization that some can't stand because they 'bible thump'.
In that case: we could compare pro-gay groups to anti-gay groups (both want to push their agenda, both can't stand each other)
Why not compare the recent gov. bailouts to characteristics of a communist state? 'we need your money for the good of the state. Oh btw, there's nothing you can do about it.'
someone who likens christians to taliban needs to spend a little time overseas. As I can recall, I've never been shot at by a Christian.
LOL. I'd Certainly rather be captured by Christians, than by Taliban. Christians may try to convert me, but wouldn't torture, or kill me. Give me good ole Christians anyday.
LOL. I'd Certainly rather be captured by Christians, than by Taliban. Christians may try to convert me, but wouldn't torture, or kill me. Give me good ole Christians anyday.
I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. Christians kill for faith too sometimes.
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.
